About a week after New Year’s Eve, amid Israeli warfare in Gaza, I wrote a post on Palestinian blogger Sameh Akram Habeeb, whose life was in immediate peril as he remained at home to report on the Israeli advances.

Needless to say, we were all severely shocked by the [...]]]>

About a week after New Year’s Eve, amid Israeli warfare in Gaza, I wrote a post on Palestinian blogger Sameh Akram Habeeb, whose life was in immediate peril as he remained at home to report on the Israeli advances.

Palestinian blogger Sameh Akram Habeeb (photo from Gaza today)

Needless to say, we were all severely shocked by the atrocities the Palestinians were forced to endure, even though most fled their homes to take shelter. Unlike Sameh Akram Habeeb, who provided us with the latest developments – a true and passionate journalist at heart.

Good news

I must admit that I’d almost forgot all about him, until two of my overseas readers, Tom Charles and Dana, reminded me of my blog post the other day, that is, bringing happy tidings of Mr. Habeeb’s whereabouts and further endeavours:

Tom Charles:

Sameh is alive and well and spoke at the UK House of Commons, see his blog http://www.gazatoday.blogspot.com

Dana:

[…] Thank God- Sameh is alive, launched The Palestinian Telegraph and is out doing what he does best, advocating for the Palestinian people who have NO voice. He is a brave man.

Peace, Dana

The Palestinian Telegraph, huh? I wouldn’t be a journalist if that didn’t spark my curiosity, so I set out to find out more about it. Turned out its name is The Palestine Telegraph, embellished with the pay off “We change our world”, an advanced blog cum online newspaper, with an impressive level of reporting, considering the (fairly recent – and humble) starting point (post continued after screendump).

Screendump from The Palestine Telegraph, Monday 27 April 2009.

Truth be told, I’m left in awe, overwhelmed with an intense desire to congratulate Sameh Akram Habeeb, whose life and whereabouts were most uncertain, only a couple of months ago.

International acknowledgement

Not only that: During its short life, The Palestine Telegraph has been source to international news, cited by renowned news outlets, such as BBC News, to mention but one.

Undoubtedly, the world needs an independent source from within the Gaza strip and the Palestinian territories on the whole, which makes The Palestine Telegraph’s entrance on the news scene all the more welcome. And to think it’s all done with a humble piece of blog software (WordPress, by the looks of it, but I wouldn’t bet) – while yesterday’s press crumbles all around. I have to say they’ve succeeded far better than we ever did with Nordic iNorden, though, even if the latter has been severely abated over the last months, both in form and content (then again, who would want to read about Scandinavian affairs?).

Please give your support to these good people, by spreading the link, blogging about them – or even by contributing to “The Pal Telegraph” yourself. Visit The Palestine Telegraph today.

From today’s reading:

• Hamas-Faith talks resumed
• Top Hamas leader reelected
• Non Violence in Palestine: Timing and Intentions
• Israeli soldiers storm a wedding, abduct groom
• Swine flu in Israel

There’s even a story on Norwegian lawyers setting out to accuse Israeli leaders of war crimes, which of course holds particular interest to Norwegians, such as I. As for Norwegian-Israeli relations in an overall perspective, please read Norway: Maybe a little too pro Israel?

Top photo: Screendump from “Gaza Today” from Palestinian blogger Sameh Akram Habeeb (23).

Norway’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr. Jonas Gahr Støre (as depicted) is, unlike officials from many Western countries, attending the UN Durban review conference in Geneva, but warns that any attempt, by Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to cross the line with regards to Israel, will be met [...]]]>

Norway’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr. Jonas Gahr Støre (as depicted) is, unlike officials from many Western countries, attending the UN Durban review conference in Geneva, but warns that any attempt, by Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to cross the line with regards to Israel, will be met with sharp protests, according to a newswire report brought by Norwegian dailies VG Nett and Dagbladet.no (both sources in Norwegian).

He may soon find that he’d be held to his words, as:

Diplomats have walked out of a speech by the Iranian president at a UN anti-racism conference after he described Israel as a “racist government”.

– BBC News

Also, from CNN.com:

[...] Dozens of delegates walked out of the chamber as Ahmadinejad accused Israel and the West of making “an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering … in order to establish a totally racist government.”

He said Zionism, the Jewish national movement, “personifies racism,” and accused Zionists of wielding economic and political resources to silence opponents. He also blasted the United States-led invasion of Afghanistan.

A brief glimpse of the session in question (the blog post continues underneath YouTube clip):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGHlsMrluu0

More on the incidence in Norwegian. And, for the full Washington Post treatment…

Also, in other Scandinavian news:

• Delegater lämnar FN-konferens – svd.se
• FN-konferensen om rasism urartade i praktskandal – dn.se
• Kaos ved racisme-konference – politiken.dk
• Forlot FNs antirasismekonferanse i protest – tv2nyhetene.no
• Klovn til kamp mot Ahmadinejad – vg.no
• Per Stig truer med boykot efter kaos – politiken.dk
• – Fortjener ikke å avspore konferansen – db.no
• Støre: – Grensen gikk ved Holocaust-fornektelse – vg.no
• Per Stig: Danmark udvandrede som aftalt – politiken.dk
• Svensk opposisjon skeptisk til boikott av FN-konferanse – db.no
• Kastet klovnenese etter Irans president – tv2nyhetene.no
• Støre irettesatte Ahmadinejad – tv2nyhetene.no
• Refser Støres oppførsel i FN – tv2nyhetene.no
• Ahmadinejad angrepet med klovnenese – db.no
• Bildt: Ahmadinejad gick över gränsen – svd.se
• Asmaa Abdol-Hamid langer ud efter Pia Kjærsgaard – politiken.dk
• – Forkastelig av Støre – nettavisen.no
• Støre i strupen på Iran – nettavisen.no
• – Som å invitere Hitler til å snakke om menneskerettigheter – db.no
• Støre roses av jødiske ledere – db.no
• Støre roses av jødiske ledere – tv2nyhetene.no

Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

So far there’s little news of Mr. Støre’s eagerly awaited reaction, but I expect it to be a sharp one. There are no reports as of yet that he’s left the conference chamber along with EU colleagues, but in an earlier statement said:

“Leaving the conference chamber would only deepen and reinforce the differences,” while emphasising that even for Norway there’s a limit to what’s acceptable, continuing

“But I cannot define, word by word, where to draw that line.”

People protest against racism in the Kensington community of Calgary, Alberta. Photographer: Robert Thivierge/Wikimedia Commons

Update:

According to newswire NTB, Mr. Støre entered the podium immediately after president Ahmadinejad, defending his right to express himself, while stressing that he rejected his allegations:

“I strongly reject the last speaker’s views,” pointing out that Ahmadinejad has placed himself “beside the rest”, contrary to the spirit of the conference, as “the odd man out”.

“Norway will not accept that the odd man out hijacks the efforts of the many,” Støre said (translated via Norwegian).

Top photo: Norway’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr. Jonas Gahr Støre (Labour). Photographer: Bjørn Sigurdsøn/Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The five-day Durban Review Conference on racism is due to open in Geneva on Monday, but several countries, among them Sweden and the United States, have decided not to attend. U.S. state department officials explain the American boycott with differences over Israel and the right to free speech.

Jerusalem Post’s web edition published an article last Monday, accusing Norway’s minister of finance Kristin Halvorsen of shouting “Death to the Jews” during an Oslo protest against Israel’s Gaza war in January.

The article has been “depublished” and altered twice since, resulting in a slightly more balanced [...]]]>

The article has been “depublished” and altered twice since, resulting in a slightly more balanced version – although not much. The original text has been preserved in this (otherwisely highly dubious) blog, whence I’ve extracted a few excerpts:

[...] During the war, Olso [Sic!] was fraught with violent anti-Israel demonstrations. Numerous government officials decried Israel’s actions in Gaza – including Minister of Finance Kristin Halvorsen, who led a march shouting, “Death to the Jews!” Norwegian doctor Mads Gilbert, who worked in Gaza and disseminated stories about Israel’s brutality, became a national hero in the Norwegian media. Even before the war began, local Jews were tense because of anti-Semitic cartoons, recent boycotts of Israeli merchandise, and the highly publicized affair of Norwegian comic Otto Jespersen, who made anti-Semitic remarks on national television.

[…]

Rabbi Yoav Melchior, considered the leading rabbi of Norway, said he had been “very scared during the war.”

“Hatred spread in a fast, dangerous way. This was blind emotionalism against Israel and against Jews. It gets deep at the heart of Norway’s emotional anti-Semitism. The current wave of anti-Semitism shows what people have been holding inside them,” he said.

Norwegian minister of finance and Socialist left party leader Kristin Halvorsen. Photographer: Rune Kongsro/Socialist left party

I was more than just a little surprised to learn that any member of our cabinet partook in such demonstrations, let alone a central figure, such as our minister of finance. Since other protesters participated for a number of various reasons, let’s face it; some were Muslim extremists with ulterior motives, such as the Jews’ and Judaism’s demise, Ms Halvorsen must have known it could come to this.

Granted we were all deeply shocked and appalled by Israel’s conduct during its Gaza campaign, including this blogger:

• Israel: A call for intervention – 4 January 2009
• Is Sameh still alive? – 6 January 2009
• Israeli Endlösung to succeed? – 7 January 2009
• Terrorism not terrorism when institutionalised? – 8 January 2009

Which may well, alongside the torrents of other Norwegian reactions, have contributed to the Jerusalem Post’s impression, but let’s be clear on one point: It’s nothing to do with anti-Semitism. Or, as I put it in a later post:

[...] we’d be ill advised to draw civilian Israelis or Jews into this. Let’s put the blame where it belongs: On Israeli authorities.

That’s not anti-Semitism, is it?

The Norwegian media and public see the Jerusalem Post’s articles as an attempt at waging some sort of propaganda war on Norway, but I suspect it’s all to do with something far more simple, less dramatic: An editor’s urge to boost reader/traffic figures. We see it happen up here, too, on a daily basis. Which is not to say that the Israeli’s disappointment is hard to understand.

It could easily be explained by Norway’s pro Israel traditions. Sudden criticism from a long-time friend may be hard to take. It certainly explains most Norwegians’ disappointment in, and reactions to, Israel’s warfare methods.

I do however regret to inform that widespread Norwegian antagonism has flourished over the last couple of months, but it has been directed at Muslims and Islam, not Israelis, Judaism or Jews.

A press release issued by the Socialist Left party yesteday, states that:

Kristin Halvorsen participated in a demonstration for peace in Gaza on January 8th this year. There were no anti-Jewish slogans during the event what so ever, as The Jerusalem Post alleges.

There were appeals for inter-religious coexistence and peace, calling on Israel to stop the war on Gaza. The demonstration lasted for about an hour, and was a dignified and peaceful event.

A splinter-group continued a march towards the Israeli embassy afterwards. This was not a part of the official demonstration, and Kristin Halvorsen did not join this rally. She publicly denounced the violent outbreak that occurred in the aftermath of the peace demonstration.

Anyway, here are a few scenes from one of the demonstrations in question:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajki0HNeQBY

Read more about it all in Dagbladet.no and VG Nett (both in Norwegian).

Also see Mondoweiss’ take on the story.

Photo: Screendump of original Jerusalem Post article accusing Norway’s minister of finance of hatred towards Israel and the Jews.

As a matter [...]]]> I’ll be the first to acknowledge a bias in my recent comments on Israel’s military operations in the Gaza strip, undoubtedly fuelled by disgust over the cruelties taking place. But we’d be ill advised to draw civilian Israelis or Jews into this. Let’s put the blame where it belongs: On Israeli authorities.

As a matter of fact, I’m equally disgusted by Norwegian protesters going after a supporter of Israel, shouting “Take him!” and “Bloody Jew!”, as was the case with the 73 year-old Mr. Sverre Martin Haug, who, incidentally, probably isn’t a Jew at all (screendump from Dagbladet.no – in Norwegian):

Norwegian Israel supporter attacked by protesters (Screendump from db.no)

It’s almost as if you hear the word Jude resounding in the street, invoking a chilling sensation I can do without very nicely, thank you.

We should be very careful not to mistake the average Jew or Israeli for representatives of their warmongering government, hard as it may seem – especially if the bloodthirsty bastards are reelected later this year. Granted, the people responsible for the above mentioned attack were morons. Then again, as were the Nazis. If anything, the incident shows how vulnerable we are, allowing for that kind of attitudes to emerge. Also, it clearly demonstrates that anti-Semitism lurks under the surface.

The Israelis are quick to drag anti-Semitism into the picture, but let’s not forget that the term “Semite” pertains to all people of Middle East origin:

The term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern people originating in southwestern Asia, including Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, and Ethiopian Semites. It was proposed at first to refer to the languages related to Hebrew by Ludwig Schlözer, in Eichhorn’s “Repertorium”, vol. VIII (Leipzig, 1781), p. 161. Through Eichhorn the name then came into general usage (cf. his “Einleitung in das Alte Testament” (Leipzig, 1787), I, p. 45. In his “Gesch. der neuen Sprachenkunde”, pt. I (Göttingen, 1807) it had already become a fixed technical term.^[1]

I don’t know how the expression “anti-Semitic” came to apply to Jews only (well, I do now, obviously), but:

The term “anti-Semitic” (or “anti-Semite”) usually refers to Jews only. It was coined in 1879 by German journalist Wilhelm Marr in a pamphlet called, “The Victory of Jewry over Germandom”. Using ideas of race and nationalism, Marr argued that Jews had become the first major power in the West. He accused them of being liberals, a people without roots who had Judaized Germans beyond salvation. In 1879 Marr founded the “League for Anti-Semitism”.

Semantics aside, I would like to use the opportunity to urge bloggers and commentators, yours truly included, to exercise a minimum level of temperance, in spite of current atrocities resembling those of some 65 years ago – however similar.

There were Nazis and there were Germans. I think, or at least I hope, it’s safe to say that there are Israelis and there are Israelis. I only wish they had distinct designations.

And please ponder this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kIx221KCxo

It’s always been interesting to see how terrorism – or who the terrorists are, rather – is defined. In any conflict the victor or the stronger party gets to set the definitions, as it’s always been. Agreeing on an internationally acceptable definition of the term, however, turns out to be an impossible [...]]]>

It’s always been interesting to see how terrorism – or who the terrorists are, rather – is defined. In any conflict the victor or the stronger party gets to set the definitions, as it’s always been. Agreeing on an internationally acceptable definition of the term, however, turns out to be an impossible task, but I think it’s safe to say that any actions intended to instigate or, over long stretches of time, resulting in fear, qualify for the expression.

However, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, as we’ve seen throughout most of our recent history. For instance, I’m intrigued by the rhetoric used in the current Middle East conflict, especially seeing as Israeli authorities themselves are based on what was once considered a terrorist organisation:

Irgun (Hebrew: [omitted Hebrew lettering] shorthand for HaIrgun HaTzva’i HaLe’umi BeEretz Yisra’el, [omitted Hebrew lettering], “National Military Organization in the Land of Israel”) was a militant Zionist group that operated in Palestine between 1931 and 1948. It was established as a militant offshoot of the earlier and larger Jewish paramilitary organization Haganah (Hebrew: “The Defense”, [omitted Hebrew lettering]). For reasons of secrecy, people often referred to the Irgun, during that time, as Haganah Bet (Hebrew: literally “Defense ‘B’ ” or “Second Defense”, [omitted Hebrew lettering]), or alternatively as Haganah Ha’leumit ([omitted Hebrew lettering]) or Ha’ma’amad ([omitted Hebrew lettering]). In present-day Israel, Irgun is commonly referred to as Etzel ([omitted Hebrew lettering]), an acronym of the Hebrew initials.

The Irgun was the armed expression of the nascent ideology of Revisionist Zionism founded by Ze’ev Jabotinsky. He expressed this ideology as “every Jew had the right to enter Palestine; only active retaliation would deter the Arabs and the British; only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state”.^[1] Over time the focus of their actions shifted from the Palestinian Arabs to the British.^{[citation needed]}

But here’s the interesting part:

Some of the better-known attacks by Irgun were the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on 22 July 1946 and the Deir Yassin massacre (accomplished together with the Stern Gang) on 9 April 1948. In the West, Irgun was described as a terrorist organization by The New York Times newspaper,^[2][3], The Times (of London) ^[4][5], the British Broadcasting Corporation ^[6], the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry^[7], and prominent world and Jewish figures, such as Winston Churchill^[8], Hannah Arendt, Albert Einstein, and many others.^[9] Irgun attacks prompted a formal declaration from the World Zionist Congress in 1946, which strongly condemned “the shedding of innocent blood as a means of political warfare”.^[10]

In fact, Israel’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin (1977–1983), whom I suspect most of my readers will remember, attracted some attention once elected, due to his terrorist background – from just Irgun.

Israel's PM Menachem Begin and foreign minister Moshe Dayan, both former terrorist, disembarking an aircraft in America, 1978 (Wikipedia).

You will of course recognise his eye-patched friend Dayan, the very symbol of Israeli military heroism, whose merits contained numerous operations qualifying for the term terrorism.

The thing about Irgun and Haganah is that, even though they no longer formally exist, their methods and philosophy have prevailed, institutionalised as governmental bodies (the IDF, Mossad and so on), which is to say that Israeli terrorism has moved from an informal to a formal platform, as killing innocent Palestinians (now that the British are gone) remains its chief purpose.

It could be argued that the Israeli state in that respect is no different from the Al-Qaeda, even if it claims to fight (what it defines as) terrorism. No different from their own Nazi enemies, in fact. I suppose you could say that terrorism is in the eye of the beholder.

At any rate, to think that Hamas is the only terrorist organisation (which undoubtedly they are) in the region, would be jumping to premature conclusions.

I don’t mean to be disrespectful of his innocent victims, but I thought it best to end the dismal subject on a lighter note, as I seem to remember humorists making references to Cole Porter’s “Begin the Beguine” on Begin’s inauguration (here performed by Artie Shaw):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIYevODTsFo

Top photo: Osama bin Laden, founder of Al-Qaeda.

Late edit: I noticed today (Tuesday 13 January) that the Norwegian daily Dagbladet.no has picked up on this, too (in Norwegian, of course) – although in a much more thorough manner, as one would expect from a newspaper.

German soldiers during the 1943 Warsaw ghetto uprising or Israeli troops in Gaza City streets, 2009? Of course the uniforms and the b/w image give them away, but apart from that, wherein lies the difference?

You have to admit that the Third Reich had every right to defend itself from Jewish resistance terrorist attacks. [...]]]>

German soldiers during the 1943 Warsaw ghetto uprising or Israeli troops in Gaza City streets, 2009? Of course the uniforms and the b/w image give them away, but apart from that, wherein lies the difference?

You have to admit that the Third Reich had every right to defend itself from Jewish resistance terrorist attacks. Surely, incarceration in KZ Gaza a ghetto is no reason for them to act aggressively against Germany?

Then again, the Jewish resistance’s charter (if they had any) clearly stated that annihilation of the Third Reich was an ultimate goal. There’s every proof you need!

Well, who wouldn’t want to annihilate a nation set out to oust or exterminate an entire people – and then some? At the very least you can understand the underlying mechanisms driving a discouraged, starving and impoverished people to desperate measures.

Come on… If you kept an entire ethnic group in ghettos and concentration camps, like the Israeli do (and like the Germans once did to them) wouldn’t you expect some sort of retaliation – or, at least attempts at breaking loose?

The Israeli government isn’t stupid, you know. They have to see the apparent similarities, and have to understand the Palestinian reaction to their own treatment (of them).

So… Do they expect the Palestinians to respond any different from the WW2 Jewish resistance? Of course not! Is it simply that, unlike wartime Germany, Israel is supported by America, and hence finds itself untouchable, free to act as it pleases, even if it means a Holocaust 2.0?

Yes, the ongoing pandemonium very much resembles Nazi Germany’s Endlösung. Let’s include that term in the discussions, shall we? Along with KZ Gaza. Both expressions very well known to the Jewish community, I would imagine.

You have to hand it to the Israelis, though, who, unlike the Nazis, express regret over killing innocent people.

It may perhaps look a little better in the eyes of some:

“Hey, they don’t mean to be the way they are!”

Edit: Let me just recommend an article by The Independent’s Robert Fisk today: Why do they hate the West so much, we will ask.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMNrs56AtxI

Top photo: German soldiers during the 1943 Warsaw uprising (from Wikipedia)

Note: I migt stop reporting either if I die or I flee my home. Shells rain down beside my house now. Pray for me…Pray for Me….

Such are the last words of Palestinian blogger Sameh Akram Habeeb (23) yesterday, blogging from [...]]]>

Note: I migt stop reporting either if I die or I flee my home. Shells rain down beside my house now. Pray for me…Pray for Me….

Such are the last words of Palestinian blogger Sameh Akram Habeeb (23) yesterday, blogging from the very heart of Gaza City. We haven’t heard from him since, and I can’t help wondering whether or not he’s still alive or if he fled his home amid the raining shells, but I can tell you this much:

Blogs – from both sides of the ongoing calamities – provide very up close and personal accounts of the havoc which struck Gaza almost a fortnight ago.

In Gaza is yet another, also silent since yesterday, and I wonder… If the blogger is still alive. I wonder what awaits the inhabitants of history’s largest concentration camp – which in effect the entire Gaza strip is. How could Jews, of all the people in the world, construct such an abomination in their very midst?

I’m at a loss for words, even if I already knew that the Israeli government’s cruelty knew no limits.

Update: It would appear both of the above mentioned blogs were updated Tuesday night, but I’m still keeping my fingers crossed.

Here we go again, then, with Israeli forces invading Palestine territories on the Gaza strip Saturday night – Live, as it were– following a week’s devastating air raids. Business as usual, really, while the international society keeps protesting, as if it’s any use at all. If Israeli territories territories were under Arab control, however, [...]]]>

Here we go again, then, with Israeli forces invading Palestine territories on the Gaza strip Saturday night – Live, as it were– following a week’s devastating air raids. Business as usual, really, while the international society keeps protesting, as if it’s any use at all. If Israeli territories territories were under Arab control, however, there’s every reason to suspect a different outcome.

Just give it a thought, if you please: Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that Israel was Iraq, in the hands of a president named Saddam Hussein, renowned for cruelties against Kurds – or Palestinians, for that matter – and the destabilisation of an entire region. How would you estimate the chances of a, say, American intervention?

Highly likely, no?

Unfortunately, however, Israel’s name is not Iraq, the president’s name is Shimon Peres and their Kurds are Palestinians. Too bad for them.

All about religion?

Of course, the picture isn’t quite that black and white. There are shades of grey – as well as other factors, too, but most people would agree that the issue of a two-state solution in what up until around 1950 was known as Palestine, isn’t very likely to materialise in our lifetime. I put it to you that future generation won’t see it happen either. The conflict is much too deep-rooted for that.

For one, there’s the matter that I’ve tried to point out for years on end: The Temple Mount, to which both Muslims, Jews and Christian – even Mandaeans – have a claim. So long as religion is a factor – which, unfortunately, it is – neither (Jewish or Muslim) party is likely to give up their claim to Jerusalem.

Also, the conflict isn’t quite as obvious as one would think, or, as The Washington Post’s Anthony Shadid puts it:

From Egypt to Saudi Arabia, longtime leaders of the Arab world, the attacks illustrated a yawning divide between the policies of rulers and the sentiments of those they rule. Although the Palestinian cause is cherished on the street, the region’s leaders are viewed as paying only lip service to it.

In other words, this isn’t just a matter of the Arab versus the Western world (keep in mind that there are Christian Palestinians, too).

Spiralling conflict

Up until the declaration of Israel as an independent state in 1948, Muslims, Jews and Christians co-existed quite amicably on Palestinian territory, which, no more than 60 years later seems an inconceivable scenario. Unfortunately 60 years is ample time to form permanent antagonism on both sides.

Two to three generations of Palestinian and Israeli children have grown up to fear and hate aggressors on the other side, and have every reason to. Palestinian children losing their siblings, parents and other relatives in Israeli air raids are likely to retaliate when they grow up. So are Israeli children struck by Hamas artillery.

This conflict is perpetual.

I’m afraid the international society’s call for a ceasefire is futile. As I see it, only an international intervention will do. Israel should be put under UN (the body which once facilitated the creation of the Israeli state) administration. Which, unfortunately, isn’t about to happen.

Unless Obama… I wouldn’t hold my breath.

No international intervention, then. Well, in that case, there’s really very little to be done. Or, as already mentioned: Business as usual.

Speaking of business: Without the presence of wars I’m afraid the American economy would be in a far worse state than it already is.

Top photo: Israeli tanks on manoeuvres. Photographer: Flickr/Chatsworth Larry

Two years ago or so, as words between Iranian and US presidents Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and George W. Bush junior grew harsher, many of us feared a US invasion of Iran in the wake of the Iraqi war. It seemed a likely outcome at the time, with Bush accusing Iran of harbouring Iraqi insurgent leader [...]]]>

Two years ago or so, as words between Iranian and US presidents Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and George W. Bush junior grew harsher, many of us feared a US invasion of Iran in the wake of the Iraqi war. It seemed a likely outcome at the time, with Bush accusing Iran of harbouring Iraqi insurgent leader Muqtada al-Sadr – and of weapon supplies to the Iraqi insurgents. Luckily our worst fears didn’t come to pass in 2006, not last year and – up until now, not this year, but we were pretty damned close to a major catastrophe – several times.

In March and April 2007 things didn’t look good at all, when the Iranian navy took 15 crew members of British warship HMS “Cornwall” into custody. Later on, in September, experts were convinced that US vice president Dick Cheney was ready to bomb Iran, based on suspicions of an Iranian nuclear programme. Behind it all there’s the constant chance of an Israeli attack, brought into light again this weekend, by former British foreign secretary David Owen – in The Sunday Times:

Some key decision makers in Israel fear that unless they attack Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities in the next few months, while George W. Bush is still president, there will not be another period when they can rely on the United States as being anywhere near as supportive in the aftermath of a unilateral attack.

Nothing new therein, of course. There’s always been Israeli top officials in favour of an attack, but if Owen’s suspicions are founded by hard evidence, we’re looking at a conflict which is likely to make the war in Iraq seem like a walk in the park.

But I must add: When it comes to Iran, Israel and America, up until now there’s been much talk and no action. Let’s leave it like that, eh?

Israeli Kadima leader and acting PM Tzipi Livni is very likely to become Israel’s next prime minister on a permanent basis. It’s been decades since Israel’s last female prime minister, Golda Meir, but what are the chances of Livni bringing about stability to the Middle East region? Let’s consult my friend Wikipedia:

Born in [...]]]>

Israeli Kadima leader and acting PM Tzipi Livni is very likely to become Israel’s next prime minister on a permanent basis. It’s been decades since Israel’s last female prime minister, Golda Meir, but what are the chances of Livni bringing about stability to the Middle East region? Let’s consult my friend Wikipedia:

Born in Tel Aviv,^[9] Livni is the daughter of Eitan Livni (born in Poland) and Sara Rosenberg, both prominent former Irgun members.^[10] Tzipi Livni served as a lieutenant in the Israel Defense Forces and worked for the Mossad for nearly two years during the early 1980s, resigning in August 1983 to marry and finish her law studies. It was rumored that she was a terrorist hunter for the Mossad,^[11] but recent findings suggest that Livni was a low level agent. She was hired to live in a Paris apartment to maintain the appearance of a regular residential property.^[12] A graduate of Bar Ilan University‘s Faculty of Law, she has 10 years experience as a practicing lawyer specializing in public and commercial law.^[13] Livni resides in Tel Aviv. She is married to accountant Naftali Spitzer and has two children, Omri and Yuval. According to her childhood friend Mirla Gal, Livni is a vegetarian.^[14] Livni speaks Hebrew, English, and French.

The Mossad background is hardly reassuring, is it, but wait, there’s more:

In Sharon’s Cabinet, Livni was an avid supporter of the prime minister’s disengagement plan and was generally considered to be among the key dovish or moderate members of the Likud party. She often mediated between various elements inside the party, and gained recognition for her efforts to achieve peace, particularly her successful efforts to have the pullout from the Gaza Strip ratified by the Knesset. On 12 November 2005, she spoke at the official yearly commemoration of Yitzhak Rabin‘s assassination.^[17]

The emphasises are mine. Could there be hope after all? Let’s see if she’s elected first, shall we?