Will Congress continue pimping for the White House?

(Ben Heine © Cartoons)
---
08-03-07

Nothing seems to have changed under the Capitol’s dome. Last November’s election results, although producing a small majority for Democrats in the House – but leaving the Senate at the merci of a hawkish Likudian, Joe Lieberman – were not a mandate to institute change; maybe some light investigative opportunities to keep legislators busy and in the public eye, but definitely not change. Not on the mess in Iraq; or the one in Afghanistan; or on a foreign policy that has set the United States too often apart from the community of nations, putting a country once liked and respected in great disfavor.

If the 107th Congress proved to be a true bipartisan whoremonger for Bush’s White House back in October of 2002, the 108th and 109th congresses didn’t bring any form of redemption, remorse or sanity to the legislature in Washington; not even suggestions for the Decider to carry on his bad decisions more efficiently. And, to date, all appearances indicate that the 110th wears the same red, yellow and blue colors that the others did. A bright canary yellow for cowardice replacing the white – mythically ascribed for purity – that alternates with red in Old Glory.

But why would anyone expect anything else when 90 percent of the legislators in the 107th were renewing their vows in the 110th exercising what they apparently believe to be their birthright to life tenure in politics? Just in case anyone has forgotten and needs a cheat sheet, in American politics citizens may cast the ballots but it is money, at times combined with public apathy, which ends up electing politicians to office.

Americans’ confidence and pride in their government have always emanated from the trust imputed to just one thing: the existence of a system of checks and balances. That has been the source of reliable strength for the Republic, and without it the workability of the Constitution would be questionable at best. And that system of checks and balances has failed, clearly failed, leaving many of us to question whether such system can ever be made to work again in a political environment of self-perpetuation.

Our Republic’s form of government with its three divisions is not that much different from that of the other republic of two millennia before: Rome. But after what has happened to this nation under George W. Bush, one is tempted to conclude that maybe the Romans’ collegial system – requiring at least two people for every office – might have worked better for America. At least the Romans had two consuls as chief civil and military magistrates to run the show – and they weren’t beholden to any party or group – who only during times of extreme emergency would appoint a Dictator, a veritable commander-in-chief (with just 6 months tenure) to cope with the existing crisis. Recent history seems to indicate that if Congress continues relinquishing its responsibilities to the Executive; America could easily be electing dictators from now on with tenures of 4 years a pop. As we have recently done… twice!

Of course, we could resort to impeachment to get these dictators ousted. But we don’t. No better time than the present for Congress to prove to the nation that they are in control, respectful of the duties and responsibilities assigned to them in the Constitution. But since the citizenry at large is filled with apathy, or resigned to wait until next election, Congress prefers not to act – as if in solidarity with a spiritual brotherhood of politicians that keeps this corrupt duopoly playing musical chairs. Why rock the boat when Democrats and Republicans hold the monopoly of the nation’s politics?

What’s happening in Congress, or rather what is not happening in Congress, defies the most basic political sense. It’s not just Democrats in Congress who should be asking for the political heads of the malicious-duo, Bush and Cheney, but Republicans as well. It is not a political or ideological duel that is being fought; nothing that resembles right against left, conservatism against liberalism… it’s something far, far different from that. True fiscal conservatives and other traditionalists must be turning in their graves when they see their ideas and legacy being held hostage by an inept group of neocons whose objective is solely a redistribution of wealth from the working poor to the rich, doing so not just through unjust taxation but also war. A reality that comes home to roost: mixing money and politics, at the level reached in the United States, is a recipe for disaster.

There won’t be any punishment for this nation’s Scoundrel-in-Chief living in the White House or for his villainous consul-mentor. At least for now, Bush and Cheney appear to be safe from any possible impeachment by Congress… or any citizen-multitudes rushing after them with pitchforks. Americans have become civilized to the point of total indifference, absorbed by the apparent essence to their lives: consumerism.

Meantime Congress is already giving us a few candidates to the presidency for 2008, people who were derelict in their duties back in October 2002 when they shamelessly surrendered their votes and their souls giving their “ayes” on the Iraq war resolution to the most deceitful administration this nation has ever seen; people like:

Sen. Joseph R. “Joe” Biden, Jr. (D – Delaware)
Sen. Sam D. Brownback (R – Kansas)
Sen. John S. McCain, III (R – Arizona)
Sen. Hillary R. Clinton (D – New York)
Sen. Christopher J. “Chris” Dodd (D – Connecticut)
Rep. Duncan L. Hunter (R – California)
Rep. Thomas G. “Tom” Tancredo (R – Colorado)

The longer Bush remains in the White House the more convinced I am that it hasn’t been just Congress pimping for the president and his administration, but even those of us who knew better from the moment he was inaugurated but refused to set our speakers loud enough to really help make a difference... our voices drowned in our own courteous but misguided moderation.

Lieberman's 9/11 police state bill on Senate floor today

Monday, March 05, 2007

Before the Presidents' Day recess, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Israel) quickly and quietly pushed through his Senate Homeland Security Committee the "Improving America's Security by Implementing Unfinished Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007." That bill will be debated by the full Senate this week, beginning today. [OFFICIAL PDF COPY] The 258-page bill is Lieberman's version of the police-state measure which was the first item to pass the U.S. under Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The full Senate is set to take up the measure on the floor in the next week or two. To tell your Senators to oppose and filibuster this legislation, the number for he Congressional switchboard is as always 202-225-3121.

Civil liberties experts inside Washington have pointed Total911.info to the following provisions in particular as troubling:


• Section (j)(1)(a-c) of the bill would have President Bush produce a report within six months on whether it is "feasible" to continue to protect the privacy rights of Americans.
  
  The President would recommend whether provisions of the 1975 Privacy Act which bar federal agencies from sharing information on Americans with each other willy-nilly should be "replaced" with so-called "mission-based" or "threat-based" access to information about Americans, defined basically by whether the information is wanted for an "authorized purpose", which the Executive Branch gets to define and decide for itself. If the bill were to pass in current form, we could expect a report before the end of the year recommending the destruction of the Privacy Act, the cornerstone of federal privacy protections.
  
  
• Section (j)(1)(d) of the bill calls for a report that would legitimize data-mining of information about Americans by normalizing the use of "anonymized data." This may sound pro-privacy but it really only means "encrypted," which means that private information about Americans is not really "anonymous." Such data can be decrypted by numerous government agents as desired.
  
  
• The so-called "Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board" would remain a joke. Title V of S.4 exacerbates the serious problems of the Privacy Board recommended by the 9-11 Commission. This arm of the Executive Office of the White House would now be authorized to review and comment on not just "regulations, executive branch policies, and procedures " -- but legislation proposed in Congress as well!
  
  The confirmation process proposed in Lieberman's bill is a joke as well. If a nominee is denied a vote in committee or delayed in the full Senate, the nominee to continue to serve for up to a year at a time. Lieberman's plan also allows a partisan majority to be a quorum for action and allows the president to set the terms for each of the members, possibly entrenching this Bush board firmly into some or all of the next term.
  
  
• Lieberman would also give the "Privacy Board" a subpoena power -- but not over privacy-violating government agencies! A majority of the Board could request that the Attorney General issue a subpoena to persons "other than departments, agencies and elements of the executive branch."
  
  
• Lieberman's bill would fund so-called "fusion centers" for gathering intelligence at the state and local not just for alleged "terror" threats but, under Title I Subtitle B, any "criminal or terrorist activity." This is just a mechanism for the Department of Homeland Security to gather information on Americans through sweeping up the files of local and state law enforcement agencies. "Fusion centers" will amount to little more than the vertical intergration of local police departments and the Department of Homeland Securoity to produce a domestic intelligence agency like Britain's MI5.

.....---
.....| Posted at 23:28 | PERMA-LINK |

Denounced, but Jewish dissent grows

Related
Presidential Contenders and AIPAC Cash
American Jewish Committee Report Goes After Liberal Anti-Semites Scroll down
--
Antony Loewenstein
February 6, 2007

In a recent essay published by the American Jewish Committee, reflecting widely shared attitudes, Jews who criticised Israel and its policies were accused of stirring anti-Semitism. The executive director of the committee said "those who oppose Israel's basic right to exist, whether Jew or gentile, must be confronted".

It is clear, however, that a growing number of concerned Jews in the United States and Britain are no longer staying silent in the face of Israeli policies in Palestine and Lebanon.

A new organisation has just been launched in Britain giving voice to such Jews, for example. Independent Jewish Voices includes prominent British figures such as the historian Eric Hobsbawm and the Nobel Prize-winning playwright Harold Pinter. Hobsbawn told the Independent: "It is important for non-Jews to know that there are Jews who do not agree with the apparent consensus within the Jewish community that the only good Jew is one who supports Israel."

For too long, Jews in many Western nations have shunned and intimidated fellow Jews who speak out against the illegal settlements or the cruelty of the 40-year occupation. However, uncritical allegiance to Israel by its "supporters" is arguably a greater cause of anti-Semitism than the dissent they seek to suppress.

The recent release of a book by the former US president Jimmy Carter, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, has ignited similar debates in the US. He says occupied Palestine is comparable to apartheid South Africa. Carter told Newsweek "the plight of the Palestinians - the confiscation of their land, that they're being suppressed against voicing their disapproval of what's happening, the building of the wall that intrudes deep within their territory, and the complete separation of Israelis from the Palestinians" - is a guarantee of further bloodshed between Israel and the Palestinians.

His book, a bestseller, generated fierce discussion in the US. Carter wrote in the Los Angeles Times that for the past 30 years "I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints of any free and balanced discussion of the facts". He blamed the Zionist lobby for its success in bullying politicians and the media into obedience.

Since the book's release, David Horowitz has called Carter a "Jew-hater, genocide-enabler and liar". Alan Dershowitz calls the book "biased" and "indecent". Deborah Lipstadt says Carter is giving comfort to anti-Semites. Some Jewish members of the Carter Centre's advisory board have resigned and rabbis of America's largest synagogue cancelled a scheduled appearance at the centre.

More measured responses have appeared from Israelis, such as the Knesset member Yossi Beilin who wrote in the newspaper Forward that Carter's words "are simply not as jarring to Israeli ears, which have grown used to such language, especially in respect to the occupation". Although he rejects Carter's claims of racism against the occupation - it is "rather a nationalist drive for the acquisition of land" - Beilin says Israel's path almost guarantees turning the Jewish state into an international "pariah". Indeed, soon after the conclusion of the recent Lebanon war, Ha'aretz admitted the existence of an "apartheid regime" in the territories.

Despite Israel's denials of expansionist policy, the Israeli peace group Peace Now says about 40 per cent of settlements have been built on private Palestinian land. Such moves are illegal and do not provide more security as claimed. Furthermore, in towns such as Hebron, hundreds of fundamentalist Jews are allowed to live freely while tens of thousands of Palestinians suffer daily indignities.

The controversy surrounding Carter's book is designed to avoid discussion of such matters. The smears against Carter are similar to the reception of two US academics, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, who released a paper, The Israel Lobby, which was critical of that lobby in the US. It sparked a furore. The Zionist lobby has not realised playing the man no longer works.

While the settlements continue to expand, the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert - who recently praised the Iraq war as bringing "stability" to the Middle East - has appointed a far-right extremist as deputy prime minister. Avigdor Lieberman has called for the bombing of Iran and Egypt and the murder of Arab Knesset members who talk to Hamas.

How can a democracy in the heart of the Middle East support a man who campaigns for the forced separation of Jews and Arab in Israel proper and the occupied territories?

Now that a growing number of concerned Jews are raising their voices publicly despite their community's pressure, there is a hopeful sign for more dialogue and thereby wider public understanding.


Antony Loewenstein is the author of My Israel Question, published by Melbourne University Publishing.
---

Antony Loewenstein » Welcome. This is the website of Antony Loewenstein, a Sydney-based journalist, author and blogger.

A Case of Hearing Without Listening: MAUREEN DOWD - Grilling Petraeus

THE COMPLETE ARTICLE

The New York Times

OP-ED COLUMNIST

A Case of Hearing Without Listening

By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: January 24, 2007

At a critical hearing Tuesday, senators happily blew a chance to grill Gen. David Petraeus, President Bush’s choice to try to rescue Iraq.

Madame Speaker didn’t lean over and boink the president on the head with her gavel, or garrote him with her red pashmina.

No one was gelded or cuckolded or left to bleed on the floor of the Senate, as in HBO’s “Rome,” that other gory saga of a declining empire with people who can’t stop talking.

Still, the nation’s capital had the aroma of treachery, as former allies brutally turned on one another. Despite W.’s attempt to salvage his presidency last night by changing the subject and going all domestic-sensitive, Washington was more consumed with betrayal than substance.

The city was riveted by opening statements in the Scooter Libby trial, where the aspens were turning but not in clusters. Scooter’s lawyer claimed that the White House had made his client a scapegoat in the Valerie Plame case to protect Karl Rove because “Boy Genius,” as W. calls him, was critical to keeping the Republican Party in power.

In light of the 2006 debacle, the White House might have been better off saving Scooter and making Karl the fall guy.

Vice got an extra dose of unflattering limelight in the debut issue of The Politico, a Capitol Hill publication. In an interview with Roger Simon, John McCain stopped pandering to the White House long enough to lambaste Dick Cheney for stirring a “witch’s brew” of a “terribly mishandled” war. What took the brave senator so long?

“The president listened too much to the vice president,” he said, adding, “Of course, the president bears the ultimate responsibility, but he was very badly served by both the vice president and, most of all, the secretary of defense.”

At a critical hearing yesterday, senators happily blew a chance to grill Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, W.’s choice to try to rescue Iraq, on whether those 21,500 additional troops will be cavalry to the rescue or lambs to the slaughter. Why dwell on the most consequential elements of American strategy when they can linger over something even more repercussive: their own political reputations?

Hillary Clinton, who dodged a recent important Iraq hearing by flying to Iraq, did not have any questions at all for the general. She simply lectured him crisply on her belated discovery that the administration has a “dead-end” and “blank check” policy, as she tried to seem like the kind of gal who could command the most powerful military on earth. This is odd from someone who is running infomercials on her Web site promising “a conversation.”

In their questioning, Senator Joe Lieberman and Mr. McCain seemed most interested in enlisting the general’s prestige for their own campaign to discredit colleagues in both parties who are tired of passively watching W.’s disaster unfold. If the Senate sends the additional troops but conveys the belief they cannot succeed, Mr. McCain asked, “what effect does that have on the morale of your troops?”

“It would not be a beneficial effect,” the general replied.

Senator Lieberman also asked whether a Senate resolution expressing disapproval of The Surge would give the enemy in Iraq “encouragement” that the American people “were divided.”

The general agreed: “That’s correct, sir.”

Much of the rest of the hearing was squandered in attempts by Democrats and Republicans who had criticized the war to get the general to back away from his opinion that the troops would be hurt and the enemy emboldened by any impediment that the legislative branch might throw in W.’s way.

--MORE--

Chuck Hagel for President!

Robert Scheer

Posted on Jan 16, 2007

AP Photo / Gerald Herbert

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., speaks at a press conference regarding his proposed plan to save Social Security on Capitol Hill in Washington Monday, March 7, 2005.

Chuck Hagel for president! If it ever narrows down to a choice between him and some Democratic hack who hasn’t the guts to fundamentally challenge the president on Iraq, then the conservative Republican from Nebraska will have my vote. Yes, the war is that important, and the fact that Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, the leading Democratic candidate, still can’t or won’t take a clear stand on the occupation is insulting to the vast majority of voters who have.

Sen. Hagel is a decorated Vietnam War vet who learned the crucial lessons of that Democrat-launched debacle of post-colonial imperialism. Even more important, he has the courage to challenge a president from his own party who so clearly didn’t.

“The speech given last night [Jan. 10] by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam,” Hagel said. “We are projecting ourselves further and deeper into a situation that we cannot win militarily.

“To ask our young men and women to sacrifice their lives to be put in the middle of a civil war is wrong. It’s, first of all, in my opinion, morally wrong. It’s tactically, strategically, militarily wrong,” he added.

If Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, another Democratic darling, has uttered words of such clarifying dissent on the president’s disastrous course, then I haven’t heard them. Instead, too many leading Democratic politicians continue to act as if they fear that if they are forthright in opposing the war, they will appear weak, whether on national security or the protection of Israel, and so ignore the clear, strong voice of the American people that just revived their party’s fortunes.

Ever since President Ronald Reagan painted foreign policy as a simplistic war of good versus evil, the Republican Party has been in the thrall of neocon adventurers. Yet, the national emergence of Hagel reminds us that, two decades earlier, it was Dwight D. Eisenhower, a war hero and a Republican, who was the only president to clearly challenge the simplistic and jingoistic militarism that most Democrats embraced during the Cold War. It was Eisenhower, in fact, who refused to send troops to Vietnam, and his Democratic successors who opened the gates of war.

True conservatives, going back to George Washington, have always been wary of the “foreign entanglements” that our first general and president warned against in his farewell address. And it is in that spirit, recognizing the limits to U.S. military power, that Hagel spoke this past Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, late of an oft-opportunistic Democratic Party that saw fit to nominate him as recently as 2000 for the vice presidency, had just finished accusing those who don’t support President Bush’s escalation of the war of being “all about failing.” In his defense of the indefensible, Lieberman baldly repeated many of Bush’s lies that launched this war four years ago.

“The American people ... have been attacked on 9/11 by the same enemy that we’re fighting in Iraq today, supported by a rising Islamist radical super-powered government in Iran,” said the fear-monger. “Allowing Iraq to collapse would be a disaster for the Iraqis, for the Middle East, for us, that would embolden the Iranians and al-Qaida, who are our enemies. And they would follow us back here.”

Never mind the ridiculous image of “super-powered” Iran invading the United States, or the fact that foreign jihadists—arriving after the overthrow of anti-fundamentalist strongman Saddam Hussein— make up only a tiny fraction of the combatants in Iraq. The question is how the apparently intelligent Lieberman doesn’t understand that the main task of our troops for most of their stay in Iraq has been, de facto, to expand the power of Shiite theocrats trained for decades in Iran. Tehran couldn’t have baited a better trap.

In any case, Hagel refused to bite on Lieberman’s apocalyptic vision, which somehow manages to skip the hard truth that Iraq has collapsed because of our involvement, not despite it.

“[T]he fact is, the Iraqi people will determine the fate of Iraq,” Hagel responded, in what amounts to a radical opinion in paternalistic, arrogant Washington. “The people of the Middle East will determine their fate. We continue to interject ourselves in a situation that we never have understood, we’ve never comprehended [and] we now have to devise a way to find some political consensus with our allies [and] the regional powers, including Iran and Syria.

“To say that we are going to feed more young men and women into that grinder, put them in the middle of a tribal, sectarian civil war, is not going to fix the problem,” he added.

Words of wisdom that set the standard for anyone running for president.

Watch the “Meet the Press” exchange between Hagel and Lieberman

By Robert Scheer

A rare voice: An interview with author Ilan Pappe

Christopher Brown, The Electronic Intifada, 11 December 2006

Ilan Pappe

A tenuous ceasefire is holding in the Gaza Strip after almost five months of a heavy dose of "Operation Summer Rain" by the Israeli military.

The showers of missiles, aerial bombardment, military incursions into populated areas over the course of the five month 'rain' storm have left dead more than 457 people, a quarter of them children, and well over 1,000 injured.

Since the summer rains began, many in the Israeli peace camp have remained silent about the ongoing crisis in Gaza and the West Bank. However, one voice remains constant in Israeli circles and continues to speak out despite opposition to the contrary. Professor Ilan Pappe is a professor of history at Haifa University. He has written numerous articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has openly and continuously called for academic as well as cultural boycotts of Israel.

These pronouncements have made Professor Pappe a scion in the eyes of the Israeli government and public, but he continues to move forward in the hope of reconciliation and justice for Palestinians. His latest contribution is the new book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.

EI contributor Christopher Brown recently spoke over the phone with Professor Pappe about the current situation in Israel/Palestine.

---

Christopher Brown: Ehud Olmert recently appointed Avigdor Lieberman as deputy prime minister -- a man who some consider a "fascist" in light of his views towards Arabs, and Palestinians in particular. Yet, the world press has barely said anything about his rants; for instance, that all Arabs should be expelled from the territories, and Arab Knesset members be executed for having any contact with the Hamas led government. Meanwhile, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, has his every word recorded for all to hear, regarding the Holocaust being a hoax, the destruction of Israel and the like. Your response?

Ilan Pappe: I think you've put your finger on two very important issues. The first one is the ideology that Avigdor Lieberman subscribes to that is an ethnic cleansing ideology. Someone who believes that the only way to solving the problems in Israel/Palestine is by expelling the Palestinians from Israel and any territory Israel covets.

I think the problem with Avigdor Lieberman is not his own views but the fact that he reflects what most Israeli Jews think, and definitely what most of his colleagues in the Olmert government think but don't dare to say, or don't think is desirable to say for tactical reasons. But I do think that we should be worried about Lieberman, not as an extreme fascist but rather as a person who represents the mood of Israel in 2006.

The second point is the double standard, the hypocrisy that you pointed to where you compared rightly the utterances of Ahmadinejad being repeated and how similar, and worse generalizations and attitudes by Israelis are not heard at all. And I think the reason has to do with the very peculiar standing that Israel has among the western world. [However] not in the eyes of civil society ... [To] most people that live today in the west, [Israel] is a country that violates human rights, civil rights, and both its ideology and polices are not acceptable. But the governments are still very supportive of the state because the world is lead by an American president and a group of people who have a certain point of view, almost a religious point of view, in which such ideas like that of Lieberman fit well.

There's not that much difference between Israeli policy and U.S. policy in Iraq. And I think as long as America is the super-power in the world and Israel is its closest ally, we will continue to see this double standard in the attitudes of governments and in the mainstream media.

CB: Sixty-one Irish academics wrote a public letter in September, calling for a moratorium on EU aid to Israeli universities until Israel abides by international law and basic human rights norms. In addition, a Canadian teachers' union has also called for academic boycotts. Is this an effective way to pressure the Israeli government to address the occupation in a way that brings about justice for the Palestinians?

IP: It is an effective way if it's not only an academic boycott. An academic boycott is only one component in what one cold call a cultural boycott of Israel, because it will be very hard in this globalized world we live in to bring about economic sanctions, which would have been the most effective in forcing a change in Israeli policy.

The second best, and more feasible, [way] is to send a message to Israel from the societies at large that its policies are unacceptable, that as long as it continues to do what it does it cannot be accepted ... It cannot be in the community of civilized nations.

There is both a symbolic and a very political significance to a coordinated reaction by societies in the west for a message, a clear message, that is conveyed in the way of a boycott of divestment or any other symbolic act which says that there is a price tag attached to the policies that you pursue

I think there is both a symbolic and a very political significance to a coordinated reaction by societies in the west for a message, a clear message, that is conveyed in the way of a boycott of divestment or any other symbolic act which says that there is a price tag attached to the policies that you pursue and as long as you pursue these policies, you are not welcomed here. Not as individuals -- you are not welcomed here if you represent a certain ideology, a certain state, and especially if you appear as an official representative of this state. We are not inventing the wheel, of course. The cultural boycott was a very crucial component in the action against Apartheid in South Africa. It was very effective and useful according to people who lived there.

The most important thing to remember about such actions is that they are nonviolent. One has to show that the Palestinians, and the Palestinians have to discover it themselves, that there are nonviolent possibilities in pursuing the struggle against Israeli occupation. Because if they are nonviolent, who could blame the Palestinians for using every desperate means at their disposal to try and stop one of the cruelest and most oppressive occupations in modern times?

CB: What of those [like the Israeli lobby groups] who would say that proposing a cultural and academic boycott is furthering anti-semitism? How do you respond to that?

IP: Three points are important in this connection. The first one should highlight the fact that many progressive and liberal Jews both in the United States and in Europe are involved in the cultural boycott action. In fact, in the name of their Jewish identity, heritage, their understanding of Jewish values, they stood alongside those demonstrators against the violations of human rights in the southern United States, in South America, in South Africa, and in Southeast Asia -- they see no difference when it comes to Israel-Palestine. In fact, in this case, even though it's a Jewish state that violates human rights, it does not change their position. Whoever is the violator, they should stand against them.

The second [point] is, the Israelis are over-using the anti-semitic accusation against anyone who criticizes them. Not only [against] those who call for a boycott, even the mildest criticism of Israel is depicted here as an act of anti-semitism. I think with a good educational network, one could disseminate the views that this is an Israeli tactic that has very little to do with real or actualized upsurges of anti-semitic feelings, which definitely still prevail in some parts of the world. Maybe one or two known anti-semites have joined the wagon, but that doesn't prove anything. The fact is that Israel wants to be immune from any criticism. And the shield it uses is always anti-semitism.

Thirdly, and most important, one should differentiate between Zionism and Judaism. By now we can see after 60 years the implementations of the Zionist ideology on the ground from the Palestinian point of view.

This ideology may have done some good things for Jews around the world, but it is definitely something that does not allow the Palestinians to live in peace or even to live at all on their homeland, and this is Zionism. It has some connection to Judaism, but its not about Judaism. It's about a certain colonial ideology that still, in the 21st century, is ascribed to by a state which is an unfinished project. The State of Israel has not been built properly. As you know, we don't even have final borders.

It's very important to educate people that this is not a Jewish question that we are dealing with; we are dealing with a certain relic of the colonial period

I think it's very important to educate people that this is not a Jewish question that we are dealing with; we are dealing with a certain relic of the colonial period that is still allowed to continue in a post-colonial situation. And as long as it continues as it does, [it] complicates the relationship between the Western world and the Arab world and the Muslim world.

CB: On November 7th the Democratic Party won elections that will allow them to control the Congress of the United States. The Democrats have been critical of the Bush administration's policies regarding the handling of the Iraq war. But the party has reiterated that the relationship between the U.S. and Israel would not change. Is this policy the best course of action for both countries, much less the Palestinians?

IP: Well, the results of the mid-term elections are good news from many aspects for the American public. But I don't think [the elections] bring any good news to this part of the world. In other words, I don't think that the shift in the balance of power in both houses would change American policy towards Palestine. It may change, and it should change of course, American policy in Iraq. But I think the Democratic Party is as committed to protecting Israel at the expense of the Palestinians as was the Republican administration. I don't think that in the foreseeable future we are going to see any fundamental change in American policy towards Israel.

You ask whether it should. Of course it should. It should because if [the Democratic Party] is loyal to the new perspective it brings to American politics -- the idea that Americans should have some inhibitions in international behavior, that the use of force in Iraq was wrong, and that there is a problem with the American image and standing in the world -- if indeed this is the message of the Democrats to American politics, then I think they should pay attention to fact that the Americans' standing and position in the world is not only affected not by the invasion of Iraq, but also the unconditional support that America gives to Israel at the expense of the Palestinians.

I think that they should realize that only in a change in the attitude towards Israel and a much more honest brokerage of the conflict can really bring constructive change in the relationship between the United States and the Arab world; the Muslim world is, after all, one quarter of the world's population.

CB: Peace Now [an Israeli Peace organization], has found that approximately 40 percent of the settlements, including long-standing communities, are built on private Palestinian land and not on state-owned land. Peace Now was given this information from a source inside the Civil Administration who wanted to expose the wide-scale violations of private Palestinian property rights by the government and the settlers. Do you believe that there are more in the government who disagree with the treatment of the Palestinians and are willing to speak out?

IP: Maybe there are more but I believe that this is not enough. This kind of criticism by Peace Now about the piece of information that they leaked to us is very important. But don't forget for one moment any square inch that has been taken by Israel is an illegal occupation, not only the 40 percent that was private land.

The problem in Israel is [that] between Peace Now [and Avigdor] Lieberman, contrary to what people are saying, there isn't that much of an ideological distance

It may be a starker violation but the whole Israeli presence there is a violation of human rights and civil rights. What is needed is much more than this kind of criticism. The problem in Israel is [that] between Peace Now [and Avigdor] Lieberman, contrary to what people are saying, there isn't that much of an ideological distance. It's a tactical question of how best to ensure a Jewish state with a vast demographic majority is not exclusive.

Lieberman says, let's take any territory we need and achieve that goal by downsizing the number of Arabs living there. Peace Now says, no, let's take less land and downsize the land rather than the population and then we can have the coveted exclusive supremacist state. Both positions are morally and politically wrong and unacceptable because at the end of the day you have 20 percent to 30 percent of [Israel's population comprised of] Palestinians, even in the smallest state that Peace Now covets and Peace Now is not willing to see them as equal citizens.

And people, even in Peace Now, would put the idea of a Jewish state above any other failure, democratic or liberal. So I think that even if I would have found in the government or the administration people who want a cleaner mode of occupation, a more legitimized occupation, I would of course welcome it. But I'm warning [that] we've been there before. These people have even been in government and they didn't make any change because the reason for the ongoing conflict between Israel/Palestine is not because Israel occupies parts of the West Bank and Gaza and is not willing to give them back. The reason we have the conflict is the Zionist ideology. This is where it starts and this is where it ends. As long as the vast majority of Jews in Israel subscribes this ideology in its present interpretation, I'm afraid we will not see peace and reconciliation coming to this land.

CB: Finally, Ilan Pappe, what can people who hope for the security of both the Israelis and Palestinians do?

IP: Well I think everybody has his or her role to play, especially people who care; either those that belong to Israel-Palestine or care about Israel/Palestine. I think the Palestinians have their role of resistance; the progressive forces inside Israel continue to try and educate and change the point of view of their compatriots.

But society outside has to play the same role that the anti-Apartheid movement played in the West during the heyday of Apartheid. We need a strong lobby inside the western world -- especially in the United States, but also in Europe. That [lobby] would send a very clear message to Israel that these polices and ideologies are not acceptable, especially if you want to be part of the democratic world, and we need you to change your policy, the ideological nature of the state, and have a much more democratic society on the ground.

Israel needs a wake-up call. Israelis don't know that this is what the world thinks about them and I think that civil societies around the world can be the alarm clock for them, and they should be the alarm clock.


Christopher Brown is an independent grassroots journalist living in San Francisco, CA. He has a blog on Palestine at www.cbgonzo.blogspot.com.


Related Links

BY TOPIC: Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions

BY TOPIC: Palestinians in Israel

BY TOPIC: Bookstore

Lieberman: The unfaithful cannot be citizens

Avigdor Lieberman appears at Saban Center for Middle East policy in Washington where he says that those who are not faithful to Israel cannot expect to have full rights
Yitzhak Benhorin

WASHINGTON - Lieberman presents solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Minister for Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman addressed an audience at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy in Washington where he presented his political agenda: "Israel has the right to demand full allegiance from all its citizens. He who is not ready to recognize Israel as a Jewish and Zionist state, cannot be a citizen in the country. This applies to extremists of the Neturei Karta as well as to extremist factions of the Islamic Movement."

He slammed Israeli Arab MKs for meeting Syrian and Lebanese officials and expressing their support for Hizbullah .

"It is unacceptable that a senator or a representative in the American house of representatives assist Afghanistan during the war and meet with Bin-Laden and al-Qaeda leaders, express his support for their war against the US and be allowed to return to serve in Congress," he said.

"The peace process is based on three false basic assumptions: That the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the main fact of instability in the Middle East, that the conflict is territorial and not ideological, and that the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders will end the conflict."

Lieberman tried to portray himself as someone who cares for the Palestinians: "Any political process has to secure an improvement in the Palestinians' quality of life and education. Attempts to bring about a political arrangement before securing peace to the Israelis and economic improvement for the Palestinians are likely to fail."

Lieberman will meet Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Monday.

Brookings Hosts an Ethnic Cleanser

December 8, 2006

Mr. Lieberman Comes to Washington

By WILL YOUMANS

When far-right leader Avigdor Lieberman and his Yisrael Beiteinu party joined the Israeli government, pro-peace Israelis expressed outrage. The Brookings Institution extended an invitation.

Brookings' Saban Center for Middle East Policy is holding the third annual Saban Forum in Washington, D.C. from December 8 through the 10th. This year's forum is entitled "America and Israel: Confronting a Middle East in Turmoil" ­ "turmoil," meaning pissed off Arabs, of course.

In his new book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, Jimmy Carter charges that we lack a national discussion about our nation's support for Israel. This invitation proves his point, as does the entire forum ­ which doesn't think any Arabs, not even the empire butt-kissers, need be present. For some reason, they invited Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer, but not a single Arab.

An Arab-less discussion of the Middle East fits comfortably with one prominent guest's vision of the holy land. Lieberman is one of Israel's leading advocates of forcibly removing masses of Palestinians in order to alter the country's demographic outlay permanently. This has a more common name: ethnic cleansing.

A constant advocate for escalation and extremity, Lieberman's repulsive ideas are more roundly condemned in Israel than they are here. When Lieberman joined the government, one cabinet minister, Ophir Pines-Paz, called him a "racist" and resigned in protest.

In 2002, the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth quoted with dismay one of Lieberman's many disgusting proposals. If the Palestinians did not comply with Israeli dictates, he suggested, the occupying forces should "bomb all the commercial centers... gas stations... [and] banks."

Lieberman's ghastly plan for Palestinian prisoners held by Israel was to drown them in the Dead Sea. He offered to provide the buses to transport them.

In May, 2004, he said that 90 percent of Israel's 1.2 million Palestinian citizens would "have to find a new Arab entity" beyond Israel's borders. Lieberman, an immigrant from Russia, claimed the Palestinian citizens of Israel "have no place here." Russians do, of course. This newcomer has the nerve to tell Palestinians with ancient lineage to "take their bundles and get lost."

More recently, he called for the execution of Arab Knesset members who meet with the Palestinian Authority.

Despite the vitriol of this hatemonger, the Brookings Institution is proudly hosting the former nightclub bouncer on his upcoming trip to Washington. Officials at the Institution said they were "honored" to host Lieberman's first address abroad since joining the government.

The sober-minded Christian Science Monitor ran a headline that would raise serious questions if Brookings were serious about Middle East policy. "Israeli cabinet minister calls for Arab-free Israel," it read. Israeli newspaper Haaretz editorialized that Lieberman is "the most unrestrained and irresponsible man around for this job." But, hey, he's in the can't-do-wrong Israeli government now, so let's give him a forum in Washington, DC.

When Lieberman speaks on December 8, he will share the stage with Senator Hillary Clinton, as well as Bill Clinton. Like every other Democrat, they failed to utter one critical word about Lieberman's new role in the government ­ even though he was a rabid opponent of the Oslo peace process.

Hillary Clinton's willingness to mingle with Israel's far right is nothing new. In 2002, she met with Benny Elon of the Moledet party, which openly called for the forcible transfer of Palestinians.

Many Democrats objected to the electoral success of Hamas in the barely functioning Palestinian Authority. They considered it a threat to peace. Senator Clinton was "deeply troubled" by the Palestinian elections. Instead of consistency, she openly embraces this fanatical ideologue who calls for driving the Palestinians into the sea.

This is not to suggest the Republicans have been honest brokers. President Bush is the most pro-Israeli American leader ever. The bipartisanship of support for Israel is reflected in the Institution's invitation to Henry Kissinger to moderate the talk.

Kissinger would be an appropriate moderator because he is moderate compared to Lieberman. He argued for "transfer" publicly in 2004. In exchange for "some 5 to 8 percent" of the West Bank, "Israel would transfer some of its current territory to the Palestinian state." To "ease the demographic problem" of too many Arabs in Israel, he advised stripping them of citizenship regardless of their wishes.

Lieberman is welcomed by members of America's so-called pro-civil rights, pro-minority party and their institutions. The hypocrisy of the Democrats ­ who are lined up against ethnic cleaning in Darfur, but support it in Palestine ­ is revolting.

This all strengthens President Carter's point that the country lacks much-needed debate on America's role in Israel-Palestine. You would think that the billions of dollars of tax aid American hands to Israel would merit some disagreement at the elite-level. In an interview with CBS, he explained the void of sensibility: the "news media are acquiescent, members of the Congress are acquiescent" while "the rest of the world debates this intensely, particularly in Israel."

American policymakers show reverence to Mandela and King, yet back an Apartheid state that oppresses and dispossess people based on nothing more than ethno-religious difference while claiming to be a democracy.

Contact the Brookings Institution: 202-797-6105 | communications@brookings.edu

Contact the Saban Center: 202-797-6462 | saban@brookings.edu

Will Youmans is a Washington DC-based writer for the Arab-American News.

Call upon Hillary Clinton to cancel meeting with Lieberman

Howard Horowitz and Andrew Courtney, WESPAC Foundation, 1 December 2006

Avigdor Lieberman (Photo: Israel MFA<>

November 27, 2006
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
P.O. Box 617
Hartsdale, NY 10530
Phone: (914) 725-9294 F
ax: (914) 472-5073

Dear Senator Clinton,

We your constituents respectfully and forcefully request that you cancel your upcoming meeting with Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's newly appointed Minister of Strategic Threats. Please cancel the meeting publicly as a matter of principle that is in the best interests and ideals of the United States of America. As a champion of democracy and human rights, you cannot possibly know about the policies and positions of Mr. Lieberman and his Yisroel Beitenu political party, and still be intending to meet with him. In a recent editorial about his appointment, Haaretz, Israel's newspaper of record wrote, "...the choice of the most unrestrained and irresponsible man around for this job constitutes a strategic threat in its own right. Lieberman's lack of restraint and his unbridled tongue, comparable only to those of Iran's president, are liable to bring disaster down upon the entire region." We are surprised that your staff has not already done so, but please let us share with you this briefing on his record before you are embarrassed by honoring such a man to a meeting with our esteemed Senator. Here is the record (as compiled by the Institute for Middle East Understanding, IMEU):

Lieberman served as Director General of the Likud Party from 1993 to 1996, and as Director General of the Prime Minister's office from 1996 to 1997. A staunch opponent of the peace process and of any territorial concessions to Palestinians, he resigned this post and left Likud in protest over then-Prime Minister Netanyahu's signing of the U.S.-brokered Wye River Memorandum.

In 1998, Lieberman called for the flooding of Egypt by bombing the Aswan Dam in retaliation for Egyptian support for Yasser Arafat.

In 1999, he founded the Yisrael Beitenu (Israel Our Home) party and was first elected to Knesset.

In 2001, as Minister of National Infrastructure, Lieberman proposed that the West Bank be divided into four cantons, with no central Palestinian government and no possibility for Palestinians to travel between the cantons.

In 2002, the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth quoted Lieberman in a Cabinet meeting saying that the Palestinians should be given an ultimatum that "At 8am we'll bomb all the commercial centers...at noon we'll bomb their gas stations...at two we'll bomb their banks..."

In 2003, Haaretz reported that Lieberman called for thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel to be drowned in the Dead Sea and offered to provide the buses to take them there.

In May 2004, Lieberman proposed a plan that called for the transfer of Israeli territory with Palestinian populations to the Palestinian Authority. Likewise, Israel would annex the major Jewish settlement blocs on the Palestinian West Bank. If applied, his plan would strip roughly one-third of Israel's Palestinian citizens of their citizenship. A "loyalty test" would be applied to those who desired to remain in Israel. ...This plan to trade territory with the Palestinian Authority is a revision of Lieberman's earlier calls for the forcible transfer of Palestinian citizens of Israel from their land. Lieberman stated in April 2002 that there was "nothing undemocratic about transfer."

Also in May 2004, he said that 90 percent of Israel's 1.2 million Palestinian citizens would "have to find a new Arab entity" in which to live beyond Israel's borders. "They have no place here. They can take their bundles and get lost," he said.

In May 2006, Lieberman called for the killing of Arab members of Knesset who meet with members of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority.

Lieberman championed a recent bill adopted by Israel's Cabinet that raises the minimum a party must achieve to enter Knesset from 2 percent to 10 percent. This would eliminate parties representing Palestinian citizens of Israel, whose combined strength has never reached 10 percent.

Recently you sent us a reply letter in which, among other things, you wrote, "...The United States must stand by Israel as she defends herself. No government can stand idly by when its citizens and soldiers are attacked and abducted and when terrorist groups make incursions into its territory..." Applying your own standards of justice and decency, we think that in the matter of Avigdor Lieberman the United States must stand with the Palestinians -- in both Israel proper and the Occupied Territories - as they are threatened with loss of life, liberty, dignity and land.

As the tragic events on the ground always overtake even our most humanitarian concerns, our vision is to work cooperatively with leaders like you to ensure that our domestic and foreign policies truly reflect concerns for human rights and basic human needs. A meeting of any kind with Avigdor Lieberman would convey a legitimacy on him and his positions that would in fact harm, not advance, the cause of justice, peace and freedom. We do not imagine that you would agree to meet with any European racist or fascist politician; please protect and project the most fundamental interests of the United States of America by refusing to meet with Avigdor Lieberman.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. The favor of your reply is requested.

Sincerely yours,

Howard Horowitz
President, WESPAC Foundation
Member, Middle East Committee

Andrew Courtney
Board of Directors
Member, WESPAC Middle East Committee


WESPAC Foundation has been the leading force in Westchester County for peace and justice work for over three decades. WESPAC Foundation provides outreach and community to individuals, groups and leaders in civic and religious organizations in greater Westchester who find themselves without a voice or support system for their progressive positions. WESPAC Foundation's purpose is to give a human face to those who would otherwise be unrecognized victims of war, injustice and environmental degradation. WESPAC Foundation connects the people of Westchester with a progressive agenda for the planet and its peoples.


Related Links

WESPAC Foundation

Lieberman: Vocalizing Israel's Apartheid Reality, Saree Makdisi (15 November 2006)

Jews and Arabs can never live together, says Israel's vice PM

He reminds me of S. Africa's deClerk.
---
By Harry de Quetteville in Jerusalem, The Sunday Telegraph

Last Updated: 12:13am GMT 05/11/2006

When Avigdor Lieberman, a populist Israeli politician frequently compared to Austria's Jörg Haider and France's Jean-Marie le Pen, proposed to bus thousands of Palestinians to the Dead Sea and drown them there, he was just a fringe member of government. That was three years ago. But last week the controversial nationalist joined the coalition government led by Ehud Olmert in a much more senior role, as vice prime minister with special responsibility for Israel's most pressing issue: the threat from Iran. In his first interview since taking office – exclusively with The Sunday Telegraph – Mr Lieberman said that the best means of achieving peace in the Middle East would be for Jews and Arabs to live apart, including those Arabs who now live inside Israel. Israel was on the "front line of a clash of civilisations between the free world and extremist Islam," he said. On Iran, he said: "Every week, the president of Iran declares his intention to destroy us." advertisement Mr Lieberman, 48, the leader of Yisrael Beitanu (Israel Our Home), who has previously urged Israel to bomb Teheran, said: "Iran is the base of an axis of evil which is a problem for all the world." Mr Lieberman, whose addition to the coalition as "strategic threat" minister prompted the resignation of a cabinet colleague, also said that Israel's 1.25 million Arab minority was a "problem" which required "separation" from the Jewish state. "We established Israel as a Jewish country," he said. "I want to provide an Israel that is a Jewish, Zionist country. It's about what kind of country we want to see in the future. Either it will be an [ethnically mixed] country like any other, or it will continue as a Jewish country." Ophir Pines-Paz, the former culture minister who resigned in protest, decried Mr Lieberman's politics as "racist", adding that the new vice prime-minister – a former bouncer who emigrated from the former Soviet republic of Moldova in 1978 – was himself "a strategic threat to Israel". Beyond that, however, protest has been muted. There have been no mass demonstrations. Few voters or politicians seem scandalised as they were in 2003. Analysts say the smooth appointment of a man recently considered an extremist -rabble-rouser is a sign of political radicalisation in Israel. "After the summer war in Lebanon, many Israelis have moved to the Right," said Gideon Doron, professor of political science at Tel Aviv University. "They think security is bad and trust Palestinians and Arabs less. They don't believe in the possibility of peace through negotiations, so Lieberman has become the centre of a new consensus." Mr Olmert has insisted that the addition of Israel Our Home to his coalition is tactical rather than political. It bolsters his majority in the Knesset to 78 out of 120 seats, allowing him a margin of security in a country known for its revolving-door governments. But while Mr Olmert says Israel Our Home will not change government policy, it seems almost inconceivable that the prime minister's main election promise of withdrawing tens of thousands of Jewish settlers from the West Bank will be implemented with Mr Lieberman – himself a settler – in the cabinet. Mr Lieberman, for one, has other ideas. He has no intention of withdrawing Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. Instead, he wants to keep them while, "in return", redrawing Israel's border to eject thousands of Israeli Arabs from the country. "Minorities are the biggest problem in the world," he said in his soft, Russian-accented English. Asked if Israeli citizens of Arab descent should be forced out through territorial redistribution, he said: "I think separation between two nations is the best solution. Cyprus is the best model. Before 1974, the Greeks and Turks lived together and there were frictions and bloodshed and terror. "After 1974, they constituted all Turks on one part of the island, all Greeks on the other part of the island and there is stability and security." When it was pointed out that in Cyprus thousands were forcibly driven from their homes, he replied: "Yes, but the final result was better." Later, an aide to Mr Lieberman tried to flesh out his remarks. "Israeli Arabs don't have to go," he said. "But if they stay they have to take an oath of allegiance to Israel as a Jewish Zionist state." Mr Lieberman does not explain how he plans to separate Jews and Arabs in Jerusalem, whose eastern half is home to several hundred thousand Palestinians but which Israel has annexed to form its "eternal and undivided capital". The aide said: "He will not compromise on Jerusalem." Such hawkish, straightforward sentiments have made Mr Lieberman the most powerful new force in Israeli politics. Since he split with the Likud party and its leader, the former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to form his own party in 1999, he has in effect monopolised the votes of more than a million Russian immigrants. At elections earlier this year, Israel Our Home demolished Likud's traditional grip on the Right to win 11 seats. Mr Lieberman insists that the world must unite against "an axis of evil led by Iran. Iran is the biggest threat. It's a problem for the whole world, but Israel really has a bad location. We are on the front line between the clash of civilisations between the free world and the extremist Islamic world." His use of the phrase "clash of civilisations" is another example of what Mr Doron calls Mr Lieberman's "popular straight-talking". But there is one subject on which Mr Lieberman is uncharacteristically coy. When asked if he wants to lead the country one day, he smiled and said: "It's too early for that."

UPDATED - BREAKING NEWS: BOLTON RESIGNS

BREAKING NEWS: BOLTON RESIGNS The previous story

Addition

Related

'JINSA John' Bolton worked hard shielding Israel

Israeli Ambassador calls Bolton ‘Israel’s secret weapon’

Bolton in extraordinary outburst against United Nations

John Bolton: Dead Lebanese worth less than dead Israelis

ZOA Backs Bolton Nomination

John Bolton, Israel's Man at the UN

Well, goodbye to a major Palestinian adversary, and come to think of it, an enemy of Real America, if not the whole world..

Yet, we may still have a problem on our hands.

Joe Lieberman might be the next Ambassador to the U.N. Imagine that. The fellow who traipsed the world during the 4 years immediately preceding the Iraq war with John McCain selling Shock and Awe.

A warhawk, neocon, Zionist through and through.

Palestinians and world beware.

Police seek data from Cyprus about Lieberman's bank accounts there

Last update - 07:44 24/11/2006

By Gidi Weitz and Uri Blau, Haaretz Correspondents


The State Prosecutor's Office recently requested information from the authorities in Cyprus about private bank accounts owned by Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Lieberman, in connection with a new investigation against the minister being conducted by the national fraud squad.

In addition to data about these bank accounts, which Lieberman allegedly held while he was serving as a minister, the investigators have also asked for information on companies registered in Cyprus that apparently have links to the Yisrael Beiteinu chairman.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice, Moshe Cohen, refused to confirm or deny the story. "As in every ongoing investigation, it is impossible to release details, because this could result in a disruption of the investigation," he said.

Cohen added, however, that Attorney General Menachem Mazuz has asked the police to expedite their investigation.

Lieberman refused to comment on this report.

More than 10 months ago, the fraud squad received information and documents regarding Cypriot companies linked to Lieberman and private bank accounts that he held there. These documents are the new material in the investigation against Lieberman to which Mazuz referred following the recent elections.

According to legal sources, the documents led the State Prosecutor's Office to request further information from the Cypriot authorities related to suspicions of corruption against Lieberman. The police investigators apparently want to find out whether a link exists between the accounts in question and persons with interests in Israel.

A senior legal source said that when the documents were received by the police, high-level deliberations took place between the fraud squad and the State Prosecutor's Office. Mazuz also attended these meetings. At their conclusion, the law enforcement agencies agreed to seek the Cypriot authorities' assistance in taking depositions there.

Earlier this week, the Cypriot authorities confirmed the receipt of a document related to this affair signed by Yitzhak Bloom, the deputy director of the international division of the State Prosecutor's Office.

After the March elections, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert sought a legal opinion from Mazuz on whether Lieberman could be appointed minister of public security. Mazuz responded that Lieberman could not be given a portfolio related to law enforcement, but could serve in a different cabinet post. Mazuz based this ruling in part on the new material received by the State Prosecutor's Office.

The Tax Authority is also involved in the probe: It is investigating suspicions of tax evasion by some of the suspects in the case.

Lieberman has also been the subject of another investigation over the past few years, regarding suspicions of campaign finance violations by his Yisrael Beiteinu Party in 1999. Channel Two television reported recently that this case, which has been ongoing for several years, is about to be closed.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/792192.html

Ladies and Gentleman, a toast to the honourable minister for genocide

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

posted by lenin


La principessa di New York, la Clintonessa, the radiant host with impeccable manners and shoes from the Via Condotti, introduces our esteemed guest, Avigdor Lieberman. Lieberman, an eloquent proponent of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians and the killing of Arab politicians in Israel, was recently added to the Israeli government. Kadima was encomiastic, praising the new minister for creating a "sane and more stable coalition". Next to Binyamin Netanyahu, who calls for removing Palestinians from that part of Palestine that is legally called Israel, Lieberman is the second favourite politician to become Prime Minister among the Israeli public. He has recently advocated assassinating the Hamas leadership, ignoring the Fatah one and abandon any pretence of pursuing a "peace process". He has said that he would be happy to send the IDF into the West Bank in order to bomb the place and "destroy everything". Arthur Neslen, the Tel Aviv journalist, writes that the problem with Avigdor Lieberman is that his politics are in the Israeli "dead centre", not on some outlying extreme.The Saban Forum at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy will be "honoured" to welcome Lieberman to chat Middle Eastern politics together. He will, lucky thing, be sandwiched between the Clintons who have both, in their various ways, done so much to facilitate the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. That happens this December 8th in Washington DC, the number one shopping destination of genocidaires today.And it isn't only among Washington liberals that appeals to genocide excite respect and admiration.At one time, the Zionists expressed the same political goal as the Nazis: to get all the Jews out of Europe. Many Zionist leaders worked with the Nazis to accomplish this. (The Nazis wanted to put them in Madagascar.) Now, the Zionists want to get all the Palestinians out of Palestine. The Nazis are one with them on that as well: on November 12th, the BNP wrote a news editorial indicating that Palestine was an "imaginary country", that all boundaries in the Middle East are "drawn with the sword" at any rate, and that they were "moderately and prudently more sympathetic to the Israeli side, simply because a) Israelis are not trying to conquer the world and subject it to their religion, b) their adversaries very much are, and c) Israel is a part of Western, if not European, Civilisation, and the Arab world is not."Having pointed this out, I await more fruitful discussion of whether the far right is penetrating the Palestinian cause.

12:36:00 PM Permalink

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/11/ladies-and-gentleman-toast-to.html

Take Back Gaza, Israeli Official Says

This was Sharon's plan from day one. His apparent conversion led to a swap of the West Bank for Gaza. Just a deke to secure the West Bank and then reinvade Gaza.
---

Saturday November 18, 2006 1:01 PM

By KARIN LAUB

Associated Press Writer


RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) - Israel should ignore moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, wipe out the Hamas leadership and walk away from the U.S.-backed ``road map'' peace plan, Israel's new deputy prime minister, Avigdor Lieberman, said Saturday.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert forged an alliance with Lieberman, one of Israel's most divisive politicians, last month to shore up his shaky coalition. The appointment of Lieberman as minister of strategic affairs raised concern that Olmert's government, weakened by the summer's war in Lebanon, would freeze all peace efforts.

Olmert's spokeswoman, Miri Eisin, had no comment Saturday on Lieberman's latest remarks laying out his views on the conflict with Palestinians.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, a top Abbas aide, said Lieberman is stuck in the past and that his ideas ``are a recipe for the continuation of bloodshed, violence, extremism and hatred between the two sides.''

In an interview with Israel Radio, Lieberman proposed a series of measures, based on what he said is his belief that the Palestinians are not interested in setting up their own state, but rather in destroying Israel.

Israel must walk away from interim peace deals, the so-called Oslo Accords, and from the U.S.-backed ``road map'' plan, which envisions the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel in several stages, he said.

``A continuation of Oslo, of the road map ... will lead us to another round of conflict, a much more bloody round, and in the end to an even deeper deadlock, and it threatens our future,'' he said.

He dismissed Abbas, elected president in 2005, as an ineffective leader and said he should be ignored, in favor of closer coordination with the Jordanian government about the fate of the West Bank.

``We have a reliable partner there which is Jordan,'' he said. ``We have to coordinate with Jordan. We have to say that Abbas is simply not relevant, we have to ignore him ... He has no authority, no power.''

Israel also needs to get tougher with the Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups, particularly their leaders, Lieberman said. ``I see the entire leadership of Hamas and Jihad walking around freely, and it's continuing to incite,'' he told the radio. ``They ... have to disappear, to go to paradise, all of them, and there can't be any compromise.''

The leader of the Hamas bloc in the Palestinian parliament, Mushir al-Masri, said any attack on the group's leaders would trigger immediate retaliation.

Israel has killed a series of Hamas leaders in targeted missiles strikes in recent years, including the group's founder, but has not targeted members of the Hamas government elected nine months ago.

Lieberman also proposed that Israel take back control of the Gaza-Egypt border to stop weapons smuggling.

Israel ceded the border in a U.S.-brokered agreement, after leaving the Gaza Strip last year.

Since then, the border has repeatedly been closed over security alerts, and Israel troops have raided the area in search of weapons-smuggling tunnels. The Israeli military has expressed concern about weapons flowing into Gaza. The border's Rafah crossing is controlled by Egypt, the Palestinians and EU monitors.

Lieberman said Israel cannot rely on others to prevent the influx of weapons.

``We have heard about tons of weapons, of missiles, we have heard about the smuggling of hundreds of millions of dollars into Gaza, and this is the fuel driving this entire war,'' he said. ``They have all failed, the international observers who are sitting at the Rafah crossing, the Egyptians.''

Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu Party (Israel is Our Home) has 11 seats in Israel's 120-member parliament, and gives Olmert a comfortable safety net in parliament votes.

The government expansion was roundly criticized by Israeli doves and Arab activists.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6223995,00.html