At Least One Wikileak is just a Bold Faced Lie – And Its a Significant One

by Scott Creighton

What we are talking about is nothing short of an attempt to rewrite the history of the Dec. 2008 attack on Gaza for the benefit of Israel.

In a recent discussion with Amy Goodman in which she once again reported as fact that the leader of Saudi Arabia wants to “cut the head off the snake”, Noam Chomsky was careful as usual to point out to Amy that one can’t necessarily accept these “leaks” as given fact. He points out that they are some email from some state department flunkie (my words) and that they are in no way proof of anything, much less the wishes of the vast majority of the Arab people.

Chomsky says, “Latest polls show] Arab opinion holds that the major threat in the region is Israel, that’s 80 percent; the second threat is the United States, that’s 77 percent. Iran is listed as a threat by 10 percent,” Chomsky says. “This may not be reported in the newspapers, but it’s certainly familiar to the Israeli and U.S. governments and the ambassadors. What this reveals is the profound hatred for democracy on the part of our political leadership.”

“When they talk about Arabs, they are talking about the Arab dictators, not the Arab population, which is overwhelmingly opposed to the conclusions the analysts here, Clinton and the media have drawn. That’s the major problem. The minor problem is that we don’t know what the Arab leaders think and say. We know what was SELECTED from the cables, so there is a FILTERING process which has been distorted.” Noam Chomsky, Democracy NOW!

But then he goes on to make his point clearer…

“Uh, one of the most interesting cables was a cable from the U.S. ambassador in Israel to Hillary Clinton which described the uh attack on Gaza which we should call a U.S./Israeli attack, Dec. 2008. It states, uh, correctly that there had been a truce, uh, it does not add that during the truce, which was really not observed by Israel, that during the truce Hamas scrupulously observed it according to the Israeli government. Not a single rocket was fired – that’s an OMISSION (in the Wikileak memo) but then comes a straight lie – it says that in Dec. 2008 Hamas renewed rocket firing and therefore Israel had to attack and defend itself. Now the ambassador surely is aware, there must be somebody in the Israeli embassy who reads the Israeli press, in which case the embassy is surely aware it’s exactly the opposite. Hamas was calling for a renewal of the cease-fire, Israel considered the offer and rejected it, preferring to bomb rather than have security. Also it is omitted that while Israel never observed the cease-fire it maintained the blockade, in violation of the truce agreement. On Nov. 4th the Israeli army entered Gaza and killed half a dozen Hamas militants… What the embassy reported (what Wikileaks passed off as a glimpse into “the truth”) is a GROSS FALSIFICATION and a very significant one since it has to do with the justification of this murderous attack. Which means the embassy doesn’t have a clue as to what is going on, or THEY ARE LYING OUTRIGHT”Noam Chomsky

I tried to go to the Wikileaks website to find this memo for the article, but the site doesn’t load.

In an interesting side note, Bradley Manning’s family tried to visit him today on surprise trip from overseas, but apparently they were denied.

Bradley Manning stated that he always wanted to be a “double agent” and my guess is, he got what he wanted. His parents could not visit him, because quite frankly, he isn’t there.  He isn’t there because he was doing exactly what the state department wanted him to do when he contacted that obvious CIA shill Lamo.

So Manning is probably running around leading his “double agent” life while Hillary Clinton is actively publishing one lie after the next via the Wikileaks memos. And the “progressives” are swallowing it, hook line and sinker.

ASIL Insights: Adoption of the Convention on Cluster Munitions

By Priya Pillai

On May 30, 2008, delegates at the Dublin Diplomatic Conference on Cluster Munitions adopted the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM), a new treaty that seeks to ban the use, development, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, and transfer of cluster munitions.[1] The CCM will be opened for signature on December 3, 2008 (CCM, Article 15). This Insight provides background on the development of this new treaty and describes the key components of the CCM.

The Cluster Munitions Problem

Cluster munitions are weapons that disperse sub-munitions or small bombs over a wide area. Cluster munitions have been used in a number of conflicts across the world. The most recent widespread use of cluster munitions took place in the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006, where Israel used an estimated 4 million sub-munitions delivered by cluster bombs.[2]

Use of cluster munitions in areas with concentrations of civilians increases the likelihood that such use cannot discriminate between a military and a civilian target. Experts have also argued that the harm cluster munitions cause to civilians violates the proportionality test in international humanitarian law.[3] In addition, once a conflict is over, many unexploded cluster munitions cause death and disabilities among civilians. The inaccuracy, disproportionate civilian harm, and unreliability of cluster munitions account for widespread condemnation of their use and stimulated growing calls for a prohibition on such weapons.[4]

The Diplomatic Negotiations on the Cluster Munitions Convention

Although Protocol V on Explosive Remnants of War of the Convention on Conventional Weapons relates to unexploded ordnance, it does not ban the production, use, or stockpiling of any weapon.[5] The failure of States to negotiate a ban on cluster munitions within this treaty framework led to calls for a process outside the Convention on Conventional Weapons. Thus, treaty negotiations commenced with the Oslo Conference on Cluster Munitions in February 2007, at which the delegates determined to conclude a treaty banning cluster munitions by the end of 2008.

The Wellington Declaration of February 2008 laid down some fundamental principles to guide the negotiation of the treaty.[6] The last step was the Dublin Diplomatic Conference in May 2008, during which over a hundred states as well as humanitarian organizations deliberated on the final text of the treaty. The Dublin Conference used the Draft Cluster Munitions Convention of 21 January 2008 (Draft Convention) to finalize the text of the CCM.[7] However, not all states participated in the CCM negotiations. Notable absentees were countries that produce, stockpile, and use cluster munitions, including the United States, Israel, India, and China.

Overview of the Cluster Munitions Convention

General obligations and scope of application (Article 1)

Under Article 1(1), States Parties agree never under any circumstances to use, produce, acquire, transfer, and stockpile cluster munitions, or to assist, encourage, or induce anyone to engage in any of these prohibited activities. The use of the term “anyone” includes individuals and non-state actors, and is not restricted to states. The CCM does not apply to mines (Article 1(3)).

Some states wanted to permit the use of cluster munitions upon a declaration at the time of accession, for a finite number of years, “only when strictly necessary.”[8] Another proposal wanted to delay the obligations under the treaty for a period of years after entry into force of the treaty.[9] However, the CCM does not include these proposals.

Definition of “cluster munition” (Article 2(2))

The CCM defines a cluster munition as “a conventional munition that is designed to disperse or release explosive submunitions each weighing less than 20 kilograms, and includes those explosive submunitions” (Article 2(2)). The CCM excludes from this definition:

• A munition or submunition designed to dispense flares, smoke, pyrotechnics, or chaff; or a munition designed for an air defense role [e.g., anti-aircraft munitions];
• A munition or submunition designed to produce electrical or electronic effects; and
• A munition that has all the following characteristics:
  • Each munition has fewer than ten explosive submunitions;
  • Each explosive submunition: (1) weighs less than four kilograms; (2) is designed to detect and engage a single target object; and (3) is equipped with both an electronic destruction mechanism and an electronic self-deactivating feature.

Destruction of cluster munitions (Article 3)

The CCM requires States Parties to destroy their stockpiles of cluster munitions as soon as possible but not later than eight years from the CCM’s entry into force (Article 3(2)). A State Party can request an extension of up to four years from a Meeting of the States Parties or a Review Conference (Article 3(3)). In exceptional circumstances, a State Party may request additional extensions of up to four years (Article 3(3)). States Parties shall consider such extension requests and decide by a majority vote whether to grant them (Article 3(5)). States Parties may agree to grant an extension for a shorter period of time than requested (Article 3(5)).

The CCM permits States Parties to retain the minimum number of cluster munitions absolutely necessary for the purposes of training in munitions destruction and detection (Article 3(6)).[10] The CCM allows States Parties to transfer cluster munitions to each other for destruction (Article 3(7)). To guard against abuse, States Parties retaining cluster munitions for training purposes or transferring such munitions for destruction must submit a detailed report to the UN Secretary-General on the planned and actual use of the cluster munitions and their type, quantity, and lot numbers (Article 3(8)).

Clearance and destruction of cluster munition remnants (Article 4)

The CCM requires States Parties to clear and destroy cluster munition remnants in areas under their jurisdiction or de facto control (Article 4(1)). The CCM defines “cluster munition remnants” as failed or abandoned, munitions and unexploded sub-munitions and bomblets (Article 2(7)). For cluster munition remnants that exist at the time the CCM enters into force, the State Party with jurisdiction or control must clear and destroy such remnants within ten years of such entry into force (Article 4(1)(a)). For cluster munition remnants created after the CCM’s entry into force, the State Party with jurisdiction or control must clear and destroy such remnants no later than ten years after the end of the hostilities in which the cluster munitions were used (Article 4(1)((b)). States Parties may request a renewable five-year extension for complying with the duty to clear and destroy cluster munition remnants (Article 4(5), (8)), and States Parties shall decide whether to grant such extensions, or shorter ones, at Meetings of States Parties or Review Conferences (Article 4(6)-(7)).

In cases where a State Party used or abandoned cluster munitions prior to the CCM’s entry into force in areas under the jurisdiction or control of another State Party, and those munitions became cluster munition remnants before the CCM’s entry into force, the CCM encourages the former State Party to provide assistance to the latter State Party in clearing and destroying such remnants (Article 4(4)(a)).

Victim assistance (Article 5)

Despite efforts during the negotiations to define “cluster munition victims” only to cover those directly affected,[11] the CCM defines such victims broadly to cover death, physical or psychological injury, economic loss, social marginalization, or substantial impairment of the realization of their rights caused by the use of cluster munitions (Article 2(1)). This definition includes persons directly affected as well as their affected families and communities (Article 2(1)).

The CCM requires States Parties to provide, in accordance with international humanitarian and human rights law, age- and gender-sensitive assistance, including medical care, rehabilitation, psychological support, social and economic inclusion efforts, to cluster munition victims (Article 5(1)). States Parties must also make every effort to collect data on cluster munition victims (Article 5(1)) and implement specific policies and measures to support the obligation to provide assistance to victims (Article 5(2)).[12]

International cooperation and transparency measures (Articles 6-7)

The CCM stresses that each State Party has a right to seek and receive assistance (Article 6(1)) and an obligation to provide assistance, when in a position to do so, to States Parties affected by cluster munitions (Article 6(2)), for clearance and destruction of cluster munition remnants (Article 6(4)), for destruction of cluster munition stockpiles (Article 6(5)), for assistance to cluster munition victims (Article 6(7)), and for helping States Parties recover economically and socially from cluster munition use (Article 6(8)). Assistance under the CCM can be provided through the United Nations, regional and national organizations, non-governmental organizations and other organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (Article 6(2), (7)).

To enhance transparency, the CCM includes a mandatory and detailed reporting mechanism involving the UN Secretary-General, which commences 180 days after the CCM’s entry into force and includes annual update reports (Article 7(1)-(2)). These reporting requirements cover a wide range of information, including the status and progress of efforts to destroy cluster munitions, to clear and destroy cluster munition remnants, and to provide assistance to cluster munition victims (Article 7(1)).

National implementation, compliance facilitation, and dispute settlement (Articles 8-10)

The CCM contains numerous obligations relating to States Parties facilitating compliance with the treaty and clarifying questions relating to compliance (Article 8). States Parties are also required to take all appropriate national measures, including penal legislation, to prevent and suppress any activity the CCM prohibits (Article 9). Disputes under the CCM may be settled through mediation or other peaceful means, including referral to the International Court of Justice (Article 10).

Administrative mechanisms and development of the Convention (Articles 11-14)

The CCM requires regular meetings of the States Parties in the form of annual Meetings of States Parties (Article 11) and periodic Review Conferences (Article 12). Amendments to the CCM shall be discussed at Amendment Conferences, adopted by a two-thirds majority of States Parties present and voting at Amendment Conferences, and enter into force for States Parties that accept the amendments (Article 13). States Parties shall bear the cost of operating the CCM in accordance with the UN scale of assessment, as appropriately adjusted (Article 14).

Reservations and right of withdrawal (Articles 19-20)

The CCM does not permit any reservations (Article 19), but it allows States Parties to withdraw after six months notification, which should include full explanation of the reasons for the withdrawal (Article 20(2)). Notification of withdrawal does not become effective if the withdrawing State Party is engaged in an armed conflict when the six-month notification period expires (Article 20(3)). Instead, the withdrawal becomes effective after the end of the armed conflict (Article 20(3)).

Relations with states not party to the Convention (Article 21)

The CCM allows States Parties to engage in military cooperation and operations with States not party to the treaty that might engage in activities the CCM prohibits (Article 21(3)). This provision originated in amendments proposed by NATO countries concerned about the CCM’s potential effect on their military relationships with the United States, which was not present at the Dublin Conference and was unlikely to join the Convention.[13]

Entry into force (Article 17)

The CCM will enter into force six months after the 30th instrument of ratification or accession, acceptance or approval is deposited. Subsequently, for each depositary state, the CCM will enter into force six months after submission of the instrument.

Conclusion

The CCM is an important step in the development of international humanitarian law because it creates legally binding obligations on States Parties to prohibit the use and development of cluster munitions, destroy cluster munitions, clear and destroy cluster munition remnants, and assist cluster munition victims. However, many States that produce and use cluster munitions did not participate in the negotiations and, at present, shown no intention of becoming parties to the CCM. Article 21 allows States Parties to continue military cooperation and operations with States that decide not to join the CCM, potentially weakening a source of leverage for States Parties to encourage non-party States to accede to the treaty. What effect Article 21 might have on the CCM’s impact on the production and use of cluster munitions will not be known until after the CCM has entered into force.

About the Author

Priya Pillai (B.A., LL.B. (Hons.), and LL.M. (NYU)) is a Legal Officer at the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva. The opinion in this Insight is the personal view of the author, and does not reflect the views of the organization.

References

[1] Convention on Cluster Munitions, CCM/77, May 30, 2008 available at http://www.clustermunitionsdublin.ie/pdf/ENGLISHfinaltext.pdf

[2] Fatal Footprint: The Global Human Impact of Cluster Munitions, Preliminary Report November 2006, Handicap International, p. 35, available at http://www.handicap-international.org.uk/page_597.php

[3] Cluster Munitions and the Proportionality Test, Memorandum to the Delegates of the Convention on Conventional Weapons, Harvard Human Rights Clinic and Human Rights Watch, April 2008, available at http://hrw.org/backgrounder/arms/arms0408/

[4] Statement by Jakob Kellenberger, President International Committee of the Red Cross, at the opening ceremony of the Dublin Diplomatic Conference on Cluster Munitions, May 19, 2008, available at http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/cluster-statement-190508

[5] Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War (Protocol V), Nov. 28, 2003, Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects as amended on 21 December 2001, Oct. 10, 1980, 1342 U.N.T.S. 137, 19 I.L.M. 1523.

[6] Declaration of the Wellington Conference on Cluster Munitions, Feb. 18-22, 2008, available at http://www.clustermunitionsdublin.ie/pdf/declaration-well-en_001.pdf

[7] Draft Cluster Munitions Convention, CCM/3, Jan. 21, 2008, available at http://www.clustermunitionsdublin.ie/pdf/CCM3_001.pdf

[8] Proposal by Japan for the Amendment of Article 1, CCM/10, available at http://www.clustermunitionsdublin.ie/documents.asp

[9] Proposal by the United Kingdom for the amendment of Article 1, CCM/14, available at http://www.clustermunitionsdublin.ie/documents.asp

[10] Article 3(6), CCM.

[11] Proposal by the U.K for the amendment of Article 2, CCM/23, available at http://www.clustermunitionsdublin.ie/documents.asp

[12] Some of these policies and measures include assessing the needs of cluster munition victims, developing a national plan and budget for such support, mobilizing resources, consulting with cluster munition victims and their organizations, and incorporating relevant guidelines and good practices involving victim support. CCM, Article 5(2).

[13] Proposal by Germany, supported by Denmark, France, Italy, Slovakia, Spain, the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom for the amendment of Article 1, CCM/13, available at http://www.clustermunitionsdublin.ie/documents.asp; and Proposal by France for the amendment of Article 1, CCM/16, available at http://www.clustermunitionsdublin.ie/documents.asp.

NATO 'Surprised' By Russian Military, Reviewing European Defenses

By testing - August 18, 2008, 2:46PM

NATO has been having problems in Afghanistan. Now NATO has bad news from Georgia: Russia isn't as weak as once thought.

The Georgians hope to get modernized equipment NATO uses. Russia's goal is to undermine confidence in the NATO shield for Eastern Europe.

NATO appears to have been surprised not by the use of force, but the speed of the Georgian
military collapse. These are of concern to NATO because of problems in Afghanistan which might recur when defending Europe against Russia.

NATO will have to explain why, despite planning the Russians reported 24 months ago, why NATO is only now reviewing progress in Afghanistan, and reconsidering Russian power used in Georgia.

NATO appears to fear it has a credibility problem, not only because of poor progress in Afghanistan, but the tactical surprise of the Russians against the Georgian military. NATO will have to provide some credible reassurance to its member nations to demonstrate they have sufficient command and control of resources to defend against an increasingly likely Russian pre-textual attack against Eastern Europe.


The Russian defense ministry recently discussed additional funding for the tactical missile complex system. The Georgians claimed the Russians moved the systems to Georgia is a tactical missile system, which has supporting launch vehicles.

Russia denied it used the system and says it has no plans to use the system. They did not address the claim that the system was moved.

Russia has contradicted itself: Claiming it destroyed Georgia's military; but then refused to completely withdraw. If Russia's claims -- that they quickly, completely destroyed the Georgian military -- were true, then Russia cannot explain why it needs a military in Georgia.

The truth appears to be something different: The conflict in Georgia was a pretext for Russia to invade, destroy Georgia's military, and occupy the country.

The Russians view the American NSA and NATO as being in bed with Georgia. The Russians are gleeful that they've outmaneuvered the American satellites, and moved rockets without any meaningful American or Georgian response.

The Russians are vaguely referring to possible NATO-like aircraft over Georgia and Eastern Europe, mocking the figher pilots as they are tracked across the newly deployed Russian systems in Georgia. The Russians provided similar assistance in the former Yugoslavia when it assisted them in tracking specific fighter pilots flying from Italy.

The Russians have been providing commentary on their ability to use space-based platforms to integrate ground reconnaissance and support air operations. One commenter was happy Russian pilots wold be able to have active air combat experience in Georgia, and not act as show pilots during air shows.

The Russian news reports are discussing NSA satellite coverage of the Russian military movements within Georgia. The Russians are reporting that the Pentagon was surprised by the speed of the Russian troop movements, prompting concerns within NATO. NATO's problem has been the command and control issues in Afghanistan against simple insurgents living in caves. The NATO concerns appear to be much more than how to respond to Georgia, but how to effectively respond to a worried Russian invasion of NATO.

Russian news reports have not adequately discussed the different defense systems NATO uses in Europe, than those available for Georgia. However, NATO has not explained why the best military equipment -- presumably available to defend Europe -- cannot prevail in Afghanistan.

According to the Russian reports, NATO has been surprised by the speed and effectiveness of Russia's attacks on Georgia's command and controls systems, vital to defending Eastern Europe from Russia, and key to organizing an effective air-to-air response against expected Russian air forces over NATO allies.

From the Russian perspective, it appears they are not clear why Georgia did not take seriously the Russian threats. This suggests the Americans believed they could dissuade Russian action in Georgia. One report emphasized the speed at which Georgia's military has been effectively neutralized. Even with some NATO-American assistance, Georgia quickly collapsed.

Russia views Georgia as an indirect proxy for NATO, relying on NATO-like equipment. Russia views the Georgian-military-defeat as a fair warning for NATO: NATO combat forces are not sufficiently robust to challenge Russia, nor defend Eastern Europe. Russia views the remaining Georgian forces as meaningless: One of the units remaining exists only to finance the ministry; and the other organizing the (already) Georgian demobilization.

One of the key reminders is the Russian preparation for the Georgian invasion did not appear out of the blue. The preparations have been coordinated for many months. The American President has known something was possible, but did nothing to timely adjust in either Iraq or Afghanistan; nor did he secure a victory overseas to then make available US forces for Georgia. The President made the decision many months ago not to fully mitigate the Russian threat in Georgia.

It remains to be seen how the Georgian conflict spills into the Middle East. The Russians see an interesting dynamic. They view Israel as being limited in deploying forces, and would have us believe that Israel refused to return to Georgia specific equipment.

According to the Russian media, Russia is not moving its forces out of Georgia because it is planning for an increased American military presence and defense in Georgia. Russia does not expect the American President to use nuclear weapons, and are confident Russian conventional forces will not be adequately opposed by either NATO or America.

Comment

Which all goes to show how stupid it was of the Georgians to attack the outlying districts, wasn't it?

Cdn University Presidents Visit Israeli Universties, West Bank falls off itinerary

Another one-sided propaganda trip for our public officials.

Sheldon Kirshner(Canadian Jewish News);

"TORONTO - The presidents of six Canadian universities visited Israel
recently. Their one-week tour took place last month and culminated in a Canada
Day reception at the Canadian ambassador’s residence in Herzliya, a Tel Aviv
suburb.

It was the fourth mission of its kind since 1993. The mission was co-hosted by
two Canadian academics, University of Toronto law professor Ed Morgan and York
University historian Irving Abella, both of whom have led previous missions.

Participating on the trip were David Johnston, Sheldon Levy, Luc Vinet, Peter
MacKinnon, Allan Rock and William Barker, the respective presidents of the
University of Waterloo, Ryerson University, Université de Montréal, the
University of Saskatchewan, the University of Ottawa and University of King’s
College in Halifax.

The president of McGill University, Heather Monroe-Blum, joined them for one
day.

“The purpose of the trip was to increase the familiarity of Canadian
academics with the breadth and depth of the Israeli university scene, with a
view to fostering faculty and student exchanges, graduate student fellowship
opportunities, joint research projects and collaborative teaching and
scholarships,” explained Morgan, a former national president of Canadian
Jewish Congress.

Abella, who is also a former CJC national president, said the objective was
three-fold: to introduce the Canadians to their Israeli counterparts, to allow
them to see first hand the quality of education and research at Israeli
universities, and to encourage the creation of joint research and exchange
programs.

The visitors met the presidents and senior administrators of Tel Aviv
University, Hebrew University, Bar-Ilan University, Haifa University, Ben
Gurion University of the Negev, the Weizmann Institute, the Technion and the
Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center.

In addition, they conferred with officials of Al-Quds, a Palestinian university
in eastern Jerusalem.

Abella hoped that the presidents would be able to visit Palestinian
universities in the West Bank, but the idea was scotched when the Canadian
Embassy expressed concerns about their safety."

full text;

http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15083&Itemid=101

Note: Ex-President Carter, French President Sarkozy, British PM Brown and Barrack
Obama have all recently visited the West Bank..., but it it too dangerous for
our intrepid university presidents?

Israel's Olmert to resign over corruption investigation

Israel's Olmert to resign over corruption investigation

By Dion Nissenbaum | McClatchy Newspapers

JERUSALEM — Embattled Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced Wednesday That he'll resign as prime minister in September, setting the stage for a successor to take over as early as the following month.

Olmert made it clear that he was reluctantly stepping aside because a deepening political corruption investigation was making it increasingly difficult span for him to serve effectively.

The timing of his resignation is keyed to a meeting of his ruling Kadima Party, which will choose a new leader in mid- or late September. Olmert, who took office early in 2006, could remain in power as a caretaker prime minister As late as January. he decision will make it much more difficult for Olmert to cement a historic legacy by securing groundbreaking peace deals with Syria or the Palestinians

Before he leaves office.

"He's a lame duck, and this curtails his ability to do anything really dramatic in the areas of war and peace,"

said Yossi Alpher, a former Israeli Intelligence official who now serves as a co-director of the political Web site Bitterlemons.org.

Instead, Olmert is more likely to wind down his term by stepping up his fight against the corruption investigations. The impact of the investigations on Olmert and his decision was clear when he delivered his surprise announcement from an enclosed garden at his Jerusalem home.

"As soon as I was elected I found myself in a wave of investigations, examinations and criticism,"

he said in a televised address.

"From almost my first day in office as prime minister I had to parry these attacks, even as I was making fateful decisions regarding Israel's security and existence."

Most of the allegations failed to affect him seriously until this summer.

Calls for Olmert to step aside increased after American businessman Morris Talansky told Israeli police that he'd given the Israeli leader tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars in cash over the last 15 years.


New allegations surfaced earlier this month that Olmert had double-billed companies and nonprofit groups for his expenses when he traveled to speak to them, then used the money to pay for family vacations.

In his address, Olmert admitted that he'd made unspecified "mistakes" during his political career, and he apologized.

He expressed confidence that he'd be cleared of any wrongdoing, but made clear that the investigations had become an unwelcome diversion.

"What's more important?"

Olmert said.

"Justice for me or the good of the public?"

Olmert's party is scheduled to hold its first vote to choose a new leader on Sept. 17, with a second round set for a week later. The new party leader would have up to 42 days to establish a new coalition. If the attempt fails, Israel would be thrown into elections within three months.

Olmert's most likely successors in Kadima are Tzipi Livni, the Foreign Minister, and Shaul Mofaz, the more hawkish transportation minister.

Kadima Party voters currently favor Livni in the polls, but it's thought that Olmert favors Mofaz.

Gaza Journalist Assaulted by Shin Bet (By Sara Price) Posted: 15 Jul 2008 09:42 PM CDT I want to thank Sara for this report on Mohammed Omer. She put a lot of work and effort into doing this. Unlike AP who copied and pasted parts rather than taking the time to do some investigative reporting and getting the facts from those involved . Tuesday, July 15, 2008 By Sarah Price The Independent Monitor, July 2008 The last words in his acceptance speech were, I can’t wait for the day I retire as a war correspondent. Then he came home to a whole new battle. This was originally going to be a profile of young Palestinian journalist Mohammed Omer, called “Gaza’s Best Hope.” I was going to write about his rise from the poverty-stricken refugee camps of the Gaza Strip to international readership and acclaim; the murder and maiming of family members and demolition of his home by the Israel Occupation Forces that have only served to fuel the fire of his mission: to get the word out about the truth of life in Occupied Palestine; and of his peaceful nature, despite years of tragic loss – his own and that of his homeland. He wants peace on both sides, and admonishes violence toward Israeli citizens as much as he does that toward Palestinians. He made a choice, in his words, “not to pick up a gun, but to pick up a camera,” because he knew the only solution was to document the truth of what is going on, and he has done so diligently for the last seven years. But since the events of June 26, 2008, the focus has changed. On Saturday, May 17, I received an excited e-mail from Mohammed: he had won the prestigious Martha Gellhorn Prize, an award given “for journalism that exposes establishment propaganda,” and would be sharing it with his friend, Dahr Jamail, an American journalist celebrated for his independent reports from Iraq. He had just received the news from John Pilger, an Australian-born, UK-based journalist and former war correspondent who sat on the judging panel, and had come to admire Mohammed for his work. At age 24, he would be the youngest journalist ever to have won it. He was due some good news. He was still recovering from the loss of two close friends one month earlier: Gazan Reuters cameraman Fadel Shana, who was killed by an Israeli tank shell on April 16; and Palestinian rights activist Riad Hamad, the news of whose suicide circulated a day later. The previous four months had been hell for Gaza, in general. An Israeli siege hit the small strip of land in January, two months after peace talks had begun between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Over 120 Palestinians were dead – most of them civilians, and dozens of them children, and several hundred more injured. A small number of their most critical cases were being sent to Egypt for treatment, but only about one-third were being granted entry. “The rest of the cases,” said Dr. Medhat Abbas, Director of Crisis Management at the Gaza Ministry of Health, “will continue receiving the new formula of PFU in Gaza (‘pray for us’).” Mohammed had been working constantly through fear, fatigue, and close calls on his own life to keep up with his reports about the siege for the number of publications for whom he writes: The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) in Washington, DC, New Statesman in the UK, Inter Press Service (IPS) in Italy, and several publications throughout Europe, for whom his articles are translated into various languages, as well as maintaining his own website, RafahToday.org, named for his hometown, located on the Egyptian border. He also regularly works to help patients who can’t get the treatment they need in Gaza, to get out and get what they need from Israeli hospitals – an almost impossible feat that he attempts for one patient after another, taking each case personally. He supports his parents and six siblings, and has done so since the beginning of his father’s 12-year imprisonment in an Israeli jail. He found work in a factory, which he would do every day after school, and late into the night. He would come home around 11pm, exhausted from school and work, sleep until about 5am, and get up and do it all again, still barely making enough to feed his family. And he was six years old. His dream growing up had been to work as an interpreter for the International Red Cross. He loved languages, and even in grade school, taught himself new words in English when he came across them, getting so far ahead of his classmates that they accused him of having an American mother. By his mid-teens, he was already taking courses in international public relations, photography and journalism, and translation. In 2006, he graduated from the Islamic University of Gaza with a BA in English. But by the time he was 17, his dream of being an interpreter had been replaced by what he saw as an obligation to become a journalist. He was seeing bloodshed on a daily basis – his town being bombed; people being shot by soldiers in the street; and the homes of his relatives and friends being bulldozed with no warning in the middle of the night. And yet, there seemed to be no coverage of this anywhere in the press. No one else is documenting this, he thought, so I need to. He started with just a notepad, writing every day what he saw. After a while, he put together a website, documenting with his words and photographs, life in Gaza. In 2003, he began keeping a journal regularly on RafahToday. But he was not yet aware of the terrible year he was soon to document. In January, Israeli forces destroyed two water wells and demolished more than 50 homes in the last week alone, in order to make room for a wall between Rafah and Egypt, its neighbor to the south; between March and May, peace activists Rachel Corrie and Tom Hurndall, and filmmaker James Miller were killed by Israeli forces in Rafah. In March, his own home was demolished by an Israeli bulldozer, with his mother and sister inside. They managed to get out through the kitchen window as the walls and roof fell in, but his mother still suffers from the leg injuries she sustained from her escape. But by November, things were much worse. In late September, Mohammed’s younger brother Issam was shot in the leg, which had to be amputated; and on October 18, his younger brother Hussam was shot seven times and killed by an Israeli sniper. Trying to bring his body out of the street, their next door neighbor was also killed, and trying to save her, her husband was injured – all in full view of their small children. “The moments can't be described when my mother got the news of the murder of my brother,” he wrote. “They were the worst in my whole life.” But through it all, he persisted. Within a year, he was contributing to WRMEA, Morgenbladet newspaper in Norway, Agence France Presse, and the BBC, as well as several newspapers across Europe. In November 2006, he was awarded his first journalism prize, New America Media’s Best Youth Voice Award, but because of the difficulties getting permission to leave Gaza, he missed the ceremony, but was able to embark on a 15-city tour of the US, to give his presentation of life in Gaza, Gaza on the Ground, to thousands of people. Six months later, he was doing the same thing in Europe, but he had updated it, calling it Welcome to Hell. Days earlier, just before his 23rd birthday, he had survived an encounter with militants in Gaza who had cornered him on a dark street when he was trying to make his way home to Rafah from his work in Gaza City. The three gunmen surrounded him, discussing with each other where to shoot him, and whether or not to just kill him. He talked to and pleaded with them until they tired of him and let him go. But with great struggle and work has come great admirers. The growing popularity of his writing spread to include international dignitaries and well-known writers. Soon, he was in touch with the likes of Noam Chomsky and Norman Mailer, who, before his passing in November 2007, was helping Mohammed write a book about his life; and had more requests from Europe and the United States for personal appearances. But the ongoing siege in Gaza made leaving even more difficult, so the news of his award in May was tempered with caution – he wanted to combine his visit to receive the award in London on June 16 with the opportunity to accept the invitation to speak to press and parliament members in Greece, Holland, France, and Sweden, and address the House of Commons in London, but didn’t know if he would make it out. The Dutch Foreign Ministry stepped in on his behalf, but Israel was making it very difficult to get the green light. Mohammed had been frustrated in Gaza for some time and was desperate for a chance to get away from the death and destruction he not only had to see every day, but as a journalist, had to seek out. By the end of May, he felt certain he would not get to go. “I am rejected and imprisoned in this hell,” he wrote. But then the call came that he had been granted exit, and he rushed to get ready to go. The three-week whirlwind tour of Europe was a great success. The opportunity to meet and speak with so many government and press representatives energized him, and gave him new contacts and notes for future articles. In his acceptance speech on June 16, he thanked his supporters, but said that he looked forward to the day that he could retire as a war correspondent. Mohammed with co-recipient Dahr Jamail (left) and John Pilger in London, June 16 (Photo: Paul de Rooij) In trying to get him permission to leave, they had been careful to do everything correctly, so that getting back in would not be a problem. He was trying to get back to Gaza for his brother Fadi’s wedding, and expected to be home on Sunday, June 22. But upon his arrival in Amman, Jordan, he received the news that Israel was not granting him re-entry. Between Saturday, June 21, and Wednesday, June 25, the Dutch Foreign Ministry worked frantically to convince Israeli officials to let him cross back home to Gaza. John Pilger urged Mohammed to go to the press, but he preferred to handle it diplomatically, and failing that, would go public. But he wanted to see if they could do it quietly first. He was concerned about his status, because upon returning from his US tour in December 2006, he had been stuck in Cairo, trying to get back in, for three weeks, and he had already met people in Jordan who had been stranded there for months. But he hoped that since he had more diplomatic help this time, it wouldn’t take too long. On Wednesday, they finally got word that he would be allowed back in the next day. “Why can’t I go today?” he asked. “We don’t know,” was the response. “They just said tomorrow.” The answer made him suspicious and nervous. He passed through the Jordan side of the Allenby Bridge crossing early the next morning, but when he came to the Israeli, there was trouble right away. He gave his passport to the woman at passport control and she asked where he was going. When he answered, “Gaza,” she asked “what?” in Hebrew several times as he tried to make her understand. Finally, he answered her in Hebrew, “Azzah.” “Oh,” she replied. “Actually, according to my computer, you have no coordination.” He did have coordination, he protested, but she told him to wait at the side, where he stayed for the next 90 minutes, until someone came to get him and told him to bring his bags. He had been through x-ray by this time, and his bags had already been searched and were ready to be picked up. He was made to wait at the Shin Bet office, and could see that there were two cameras on him, on either side. Then he saw two Palestinian men coming out from other offices and they were dressing themselves. He knew then that these were rooms for strip-searching, and that he was probably in trouble. A young blond Shin Bet agent told him to come with him, collecting his bags from the holding area, where they had been searched already, and demanded his cell phone. Mohammed was going through the Allenby Bridge crossing under diplomatic escort from the Dutch embassy, as he had left, and asked if could call his escorts to let them know what was happening. The young man barked at him that no, he could not. After a few minutes, another agent, an investigator in his forties referred to as “Avi” by the other agents, entered and started going through all his belongings, along with another interrogator who had joined him. After searching through everything and dumping all his notes, cell phone, and memory cards into a box, they demanded to know where the money was. He wasn’t sure what they meant, but told them what traveling money he had on him – various amounts in British pounds, Euros, Israeli shekels, and Jordanian dinars. They demanded he put it all on the table, which he did, thinking maybe this was a shakedown – they would take the money he had and then let him go. But they were still dissatisfied. They asked again about the English pounds he had, and he realized then that they were looking for the prize money. The Martha Gellhorn Prize, since it was shared, would come out to roughly $5000 USD. But he had felt it safer to have it transferred to his bank, rather than carry it with him. When he told them this, he said, they were visibly irate and called him a liar. By this point, the room had filled with more agents and he was outnumbered eight-to-one. They were angry and wanted money he didn’t have. And they were armed. When he repeated that he had shown them everything he had on him, Avi escorted him to an empty room. “Take off your clothes,” he ordered him. Mohammed refused. He had already been through x-ray, and a pat-down would have revealed anything he might have been hiding. “Take off your clothes,” he demanded again. So, he stripped down to his underwear. “Take off everything,” he pressed. Mohammed refused again. “I am a journalist,” he said, “and I have an escort from the Dutch embassy waiting for me. Call them and tell them what’s happening and that you want me to take off my clothes.” Avi retorted that he knew all this, and insisted again that he take off his underwear. By this time, Mohammed was frightened. “Why are you treating me this way?” he asked. “This is nothing compared to what you will see now,” Avi replied, putting his hand on his revolver, pressing his weight against Mohammed’s hip and forcibly pulling it off. He then patted his body down, “up one side and down the other,” Mohammed said later, and he was subjected to a cavity search. He then demanded he move to the left and right, in some kind of dance. When Mohammed refused, Avi pulled him left and right. He had held his composure as long as he could, and started to cry. Avi backed off at that point. “He looked satisfied,” he said. “He just wanted to humiliate me. He didn’t care about what I had. The intention was not to bring me to Gaza.” He ordered him to get dressed and come back into the other room, where another of the intelligence officers was still going through his belongings. The agent shook his head at Mohammed. “You are a crazy man,” he said. “I can’t understand why someone who has traveled to Sweden, Holland, Greece, London and Paris is coming back to Gaza. Gaza is a dirty place with dirty people. I thought the dream of those people is to leave Gaza and live in Europe. Why do you want to go to Gaza? There’s nothing in Gaza – no food, no fuel, no clean water. There is darkness. Go live in Paris; it’s beautiful there. Or do you like to be around the Hamas system in Gaza?” Goading him, and not really looking for a response, he continued: “Aren't you ashamed to have your name and reputation associated with such a dirty place as Gaza?” Mohammed answered, “No, I want to be there because I want to be a voice for the voiceless. I want to get the truth out. I have no affiliation with Hamas; I don’t even think they like me.” “Then you choose to suffer.” “No,” Mohammed said, “I choose to tell the truth.” They continued to go through his luggage, taunting him about various items he had come home with: “What are the perfumes for?” “My friends and family, people I love.” “Oh, you have love in your culture?” “Of course.” “What is this?” they asked, referring to a trophy he was given by the Greek Union of Journalists. When he told them, Avi replied that Greece was not a friend of Israel, only of the Palestinians. “I don’t know,” Mohammed responded, wondering how Greece would feel about that, “it’s not my business.” He had been standing for quite some time by then and had been without food, water, or a toilet for several hours. The stress and abuse caused him to feel faint, and he vomited and collapsed. A doctor said later that he had suffered a nervous breakdown. He was unconscious for nearly an hour and a half on the floor, he estimates, but could hear what they were saying, and feel what they were doing to him. “They didn’t believe I had really passed out,” he said, “so they were out to make me react to their pressure.” One agent dug his nails into the skin under his eyes and behind his ears, pinching him. Another pressed his shoe hard enough against his neck, that Mohammed could feel the outline of it. Another used two fingers to press into the space between his neck and chest, cutting off his airway. Mohammed remembers feeling himself choking. The damage to his trachea was so severe that even weeks later, he could not swallow anything but liquids. Finally, another pressed his hands into his chest with all the weight of his body, which eventually resulted in several fractured ribs, and breathing problems. They also continued to taunt him, saying, “Come on, Mohammed, we’re going to take you to Rafah now!,” expecting that would cause him to suddenly recover. They eventually realized the severity of the situation and began to panic, calling for an ambulance, and an Israeli doctor checked his heart and performed an EKG. He was still unconscious in the ambulance, but Shin Bet agents continued trying to revive him – calling his name, forcing open his eyes, and spraying a sort of smelling salts into his face. But the efforts were not out of concern for his health: they needed him to sign a waiver, releasing them from all responsibility. Fortunately, the Palestinian ambulance driver, Mahmoud Taraira, intervened. He cannot sign that, he protested, he’s unconscious. He added that anything signed in that state of mind is non-binding. They finally made it to the Palestinian doctors in Jericho, who were reassuring him he would be OK now. At last able to call his escorts, after at least five hours, he found his cell phone amongst his belongings, but then he noticed his mobile was acting strangely – it was dialing numbers and sending messages by itself. The agents had told him earlier to give it to them and take out the battery. He believes that they used that opportunity to put something in it to track him. For days, it would only work off and on. Sometimes people could get through, others times, not at all. So he borrowed a phone and called the Dutch embassy to come get him. He arrived home safely, but by the next day, he was back in the hospital with breathing problems and chest pains. Due to the damage to his trachea, he couldn’t swallow, and spent six days in European Hospital in Khan Younis, being fed and medicated through an IV drip. He discovered later that although all the money had been returned, an expensive watch and some other items had not. In his bed at European Hospital in Khan Younis, in the Gaza Strip (Reuters) Israel’s immediate responses ranged from being completely unaware of the incident to washing their hands of the actions of Shin Bet. Lisa Dvir, from the Israeli Airport Authority (IAA), the body responsible for controlling Israel’s borders, told IPS, “We would like to know who Omer spoke to in regard to receiving coordination to pass through Allenby. We offer journalists a special service when passing through our border crossings, and had we known about his arrival this would not have happened.” The truth is that Palestinian journalists have been targeted for some time. Reuters cameraman Fadel Shana, 23, had shown up at the site of an air strike on April 16, 2008, to film the outcome of the incident, when he was killed by an Israeli tank shell, filled with small metal darts called flechettes, in full view of the soldiers operating the tank. His car was clearly marked “TV” and “Press,” as was his bullet-proof vest. The blast also injured his soundman, and killed two children in the area instantly, and two more from their injuries days later. He was filming the tank when they fired at him. The tape from his destroyed camera shows the shell coming at him. Al-Aqsa TV cameraman Imad Ghanem, 21, was shot while he filmed a clash between Palestinian militants and Israeli soldiers on July 5, 2007. As he fell to the ground, he held up his camera to show he was unarmed, but a tape filmed by a colleague shows that he continued to be fired upon. He survived, but lost both legs. On July 8, 2006, photojournalist Mohammed al Zanoun, 20, was shot by a helicopter as he documented Israeli attacks in Gaza City. As paramedics rushed to save him, he pleaded with them to save the camera, so that what he saw would be documented. He has sustained permanent damage to his head and chest. Omer had recently reported, after Shana’s death, that “journalists have long been targeted in the region. Since September 2000, Israeli forces have killed nine journalists, and have wounded at least 170 others.” The news of Mohammed’s attack started to spread on Friday, June 27, as friends and colleagues were in touch with him from his hospital bed. Hans van Baalen, a member of the Party for Freedom and Democracy in the Dutch parliament, who had been personally responsible for arranging his exit from Gaza both for this European tour and his previous one, in June 2007, said, “I cannot understand it because Israel wanted him to travel through Israel. The Dutch embassy escorted him a year ago and this time, so they should have known he is decent journalist and should have treated him in a decent way, they should also treat other innocent Palestinians and other travelers decently. But this did not happen.” He filed a protest with the Israeli government and asked that Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Maxime Verhagen do the same, demanding “an investigation with public conclusions.” “We will monitor this,” he said. “If we don’t like [the results of the investigation], we will speak out.” Harry Kney-Tal, the Israeli ambassador to the Netherlands, assured them that if the claims were accurate, that this act was not according to official procedure. In response to a claim reported by Reuters that an Israeli official said that no rules were breached and that Omer had fallen somehow on his own, breaking his ribs, Kney-Tal said that was not the official response, and that there was a full investigation in progress and he expected results shortly. However, on July 9, The Israeli Government Press Office released a statement on the incident, discrediting Omer. In it, they claimed that he and his baggage were searched, “due to suspicion that he had been in contact with hostile elements and had been asked by them to deliver items to Judea and Samaria.” (“Judea and Samaria” is a phrase commonly used by the Israeli right wing to dismiss the existence of the West Bank and to claim the area as exclusively Israeli), although he had been x-rayed and his baggage searched before the interrogation occurred. The press release went on to point out several points in Omer’s claim that they said contradicted their investigation, but it failed to cite the sources of their research, and often quoted him out of context. When the Dutch Press Office became aware of the press release, they were surprised, said spokesman Robert Dekker, and they confronted Ambassador Kney-Tal about it. “He confirmed that this is not the official report, and that it is still expected in the next few days,” he said. News of Omer’s attack spread quickly across the blogosphere and alternative news sources, as well as media outlets across the Middle East, but getting into the mainstream media in the West has been difficult. Concerned friends and colleagues deluged CNN, BBC and AP offices with requests that they cover the story, to no avail. When it was mentioned by the BBC and the New York Times, it was to say that Israel was denying the charges. But when Karin Laub, from the AP Jerusalem bureau published an article also disputing Omer’s claims, yet also failing to cite sources, it was the story that spread across American news websites. While she was interviewing him, Omer said later, she continually cut him off while he tried to give her his account of the incident, and although in her article she stated that strip-searching was not the norm in Israeli security procedure, when he was telling her about his, she said that that was normal. More respected writers in the US have also had trouble getting the US press to pay attention.“I've been following it closely, signing petitions, joining in protests,” said author and political activist Noam Chomsky. “I've brought it to the attention of the very few journalists with whom I still have contact. It will, I'm afraid, be very hard to get the US media to pay any attention, or even to believe the facts.” Omer’s Martha Gellhorn Prize co-recipient Dahr Jamail has also faced difficulty in getting the news published. “I'm doing all I can to get it out,” he said. “Nada in the US mainstream, which is no surprise. The only response I got was an email from someone at CBS asking to be removed from my dispatch list when I sent out the press release about his torture. Doing all I can....but of course we know that they will censor this the best they can.” Omer’s editors at the Washington Report circulated a petition protesting the abuse, which they planned to hand-deliver in a meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, garnered approximately 2500 signatures; Israeli civil rights group New Profile also circulated a petition calling for the just treatment of journalists, citing Omer as one of many recent abuses, which had an additional 1000, and British Member of Parliament Colin Breed brought a measure to the Parliament House Assembly, calling on an official criticism of Israel’s torture of Omer, and for Israel to compensate him for his medical costs. But despite the efforts, Omer is not optimistic. They have committed one crime after another that they have not had to explain or pay for, he says, and he doesn’t believe his case will be any different. In his article for the Guardian, John Pilger quoted former Dutch ambassador Jan Wijenberg, who said: "This is by no means an isolated incident, but part of a long-term strategy to demolish Palestinian social, economic and cultural life ... I am aware of the possibility that Mohammed Omer might be murdered by Israeli snipers or bomb attack in the near future." Omer has no doubt that could happen, but is not letting it deter him. "The Israelis were trying to punish me for the work I am doing and getting the message out," he told IPS from his hospital bed. "But they won't break me. As soon as I am better, and my limbs are working properly, I will be back on the beat and reporting what is happening. They have made me more determined than ever." Mother Teresa once said, “I know God will not give me anything I can't handle. I just wish that He didn’t trust me so much.” It would not be surprising if the same thought crossed Mohammed Omer’s mind once in a while. With his astonishing rise from poverty and tragedy to success and acclaim in his short 24 years, he may very well be Gaza’s best hope. Not merely because of his success, but because of what it took to get it – diligence, hard work, and a daily show of courage that most will never be forced to display; but above all, a belief in his fellow human beings that keeps him going – through the imprisonment of his father, the murder and maiming of his brothers, the demolition of his home and the loss of everything he had, and the brutal attempts to silence him. Gaza’s best hope is that there is still hope. Barely out of the hospital, still on a liquid diet and unable to breathe comfortably yet, Mohammed is already hard at work, writing again.

Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner

Blair Assassination Threat Cited In Postponement Of Gaza Trip

From the Wire

Provided by HuffingtonPost.com

Blair Assassination Threat Cited In Postponement Of Gaza Trip
Posted on July 15, 2008 at 11:41 AM.

BEIT LAHIYA, Gaza Strip — Mideast envoy Tony Blair on Tuesday called off what would have been the first visit of a top Western diplomat to Hamas-ruled Gaza, after Israel's Shin Bet security service said he might come under attack there.

The Shin Bet security service said it had received "pinpoint information that Palestinians were planning to attack Blair in Gaza, so the relevant services alerted him to the fact."

Blair told The Associated Press that the threat was "specific" and "credible," forcing him to call off the trip but he said it was a postponement, not a cancellation.

"I intend to go to Gaza as soon as I can, and I will continue to press for help for the people there," he said.

Blair's visit Tuesday was to have included a tour of a Gaza waste water project and meetings with traders and U.N. officials, but not with leaders of Hamas, the Islamic militant group that seized Gaza by force more than a year ago.

Hamas made security arrangements for Blair, setting up checkpoints in areas he was expected to tour, banning cars from using roads and lining streets with black-clad policemen carrying AK-47s.

Since the Hamas takeover, Gaza has been virtually sealed off from the world by Israel and Egypt, a policy that has received tacit international backing.

Blair has said in recent weeks that a new policy toward Gaza needs to be developed, pointing to the growing suffering of Gaza's people, but has not offered a plan. The options are limited because much of the international community considers Hamas a terrorist group and has shunned its government.

Blair's spokesman, Matthew Doyle, said the envoy called off the visit "due to a specific security threat which would have made it irresponsible to proceed, not just for those visiting but also the local community."

Blair denied that the Israeli government pressed him to call off the trip. "It was a pity, because it would have been important to go and see for myself the situation in Gaza," he said.

Taher Nunu, a Hamas government spokesman denied there were any security threats against Blair. "Gaza is still open for all visitors, to break the siege and see the extent of suffering here," he said.

Although the once lawless Gaza has been mostly pacified under Hamas' stern rule, there are still shadowy extremist Muslim groups in the territory. On an Islamist forum popular with Gaza residents, some users slammed Blair's expected visit, but there were no direct threats of violence against him. Those comments were later removed from the Web site.

A key stop on Blair's trip would have been a northern Gaza waste water project being built with international funds. The Mideast envoy had not been expected to meet officials from Hamas, which is committed to Israel's destruction and is considered a terrorist group by the U.S., European Union and Israel.

"We are very disappointed," said John Ging, Gaza director of the U.N. agency in charge of aiding Palestinian refugees.

Blair, a former British prime minister, is trying to revive the struggling Palestinian economy to lay the groundwork for a future independent Palestinian state. He represents the Mideast Quartet _ the U.S., Russia, the EU and the United Nations _ which is trying to push the Palestinians and Israel toward a peace agreement.

Blair also canceled a visit to Sderot expected on Tuesday, a town in southern Israel which is the frequent target of rockets fired by Palestinian militants in Gaza.

Isreali media predicts end for Olmert

Israeli media predicts end for Olmert over new scandal

4 hours ago

JERUSALEM (AFP) — Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was under fire from the media on Sunday over fresh corruption allegations, with commentators saying the embattled premier's political career was all but over.

"Ehud Olmert is finished. Politicians, the leaders he will meet today in Paris, the prosecutor and the police, all of them know this. The only one who wants to ignore it is Olmert," wrote Nahum Barnea, a columnist for the mass-selling Yediot Aharonot newspaper.

Police suspect that on at least 12 occasions when Olmert was Jerusalem mayor or trade and industry minister he submitted multiple invoices to different organisations for the same trip, pocketing about 110,000 dollars (60,000 euros) in reimbursements, Yediot Aharonot reported.

Olmert, already the subject of four pending investigations, is accused of using the ill-gotten gains from speaking tours to finance private trips for himself and his family.

"Ehud Olmert needs to give up. Enough. This has already gone out of all bounds," Ben Caspit wrote on the front page of the Maariv newspaper. "This country needs a real government, not a shadow one."

The speaking tours were allegedly funded by several private organisations, including foundations for physically and mentally disabled children, the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial, and the American Friends of the IDF (Israeli army).

"Olmert made an illegal profit by speaking about Holocaust survivors, wounded kids, and soldiers." wrote Amir Oren, a columnist for the left-leaning Haaretz newspaper.

"To his friends, Olmert is a frequent flyer, but to the police he's just a frequent liar," he added.

Olmert's own children have sought to distance themselves from the charges against their father. His two sons and two daughters released a joint statement to local media saying they knew nothing about the allegations.

"We want to make it unequivocally clear that we were specifically told that the plane tickets given to us were a gift from our father and were privately financed by him," the statement said, according to the Ynet news service.

The new claims surfaced on Friday after police questioned Olmert, 62, for the third time since May.

He is also accused of illegally receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash-stuffed envelopes from US millionaire financier Morris Talansky before he became prime minister in 2006.

Olmert, who took office in January 2006, has denied all the allegations and on Saturday night lashed out at investigators before heading to an international summit in Paris.

"I was shocked by the distorted reports on behalf of law enforcement entities. The only result will be the weakening of the public trust in law enforcement bodies," Olmert told reporters.

An aide to Olmert and key witness in the case insisted on Saturday that he had "never stolen a shekel," according to local media.

"The prime minister is neither a thief nor an imposter. He has never stolen a shekel or used public funds for family expenses," said Rachael Risby Raz, who organised Olmert's travels while he was trade and industry minister.

Since the Talansky affair broke in May Olmert has lost much of his support from his Labour coalition allies and even from within the ranks of his own centrist Kadima party, which has agreed to hold a leadership vote in September.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is viewed as the front-runner in the party election, but both Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz and Public Security Minister Avi Dichter are also jockeying for the top job.

It remains unclear whether Olmert himself will seek to run again.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hSlhjwupypkLwC1iOm2cCElJK7KQ

Tom Engelhardt on Cheney's Iranian Dream

Are Cheney's Iran Dreams Shattered?

By Tom Engelhardt, Tomdispatch.com. Posted July 11, 2008.

Just because there's a will doesn't mean there's a way.

It's been on the minds of antiwar activists and war critics since 2003. And little wonder. If you don't remember the pre-invasion of Iraq neocon quip, "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran..." -- then take notice. Even before American troops entered Iraq, knocking off Iran was already "Regime Change: The Sequel." It was always on the Bush agenda and, for a faction of the administration led by Vice President Cheney, it evidently still is.

Add to that a series of provocative statements by President Bush, the Vice President, and other top U.S. officials and former officials. Take Cheney's daughter Elizabeth, who recently sent this verbal message to the Iranians: "[D]espite what you may be hearing from Congress, despite what you may be hearing from others in the administration who might be saying force isn't on the table... we're serious." Asked about an Israeli strike on Iran, she said: "I certainly don't think that we should do anything but support them." Similarly, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton suggested that the Bush administration might launch an Iranian air assault in its last, post-election weeks in office.

Consider as well the evident relish with which the President and other top administration officials regularly refuse to take "all options" off that proverbial "table" (at which no one bothers to sit down to talk). Throw into the mix semi-official threats, warnings, and hair-raising leaks from Israeli officials and intelligence types about Iran's progress in producing a nuclear weapon and what Israel might do about it. Then there were those recent reports on a "major" Israeli "military exercise" in the Mediterranean that seemed to prefigure a future air assault on Iran. ("Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military's capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran's nuclear program.")

From the other side of the American political aisle comes a language hardly less hair-raising, including Hillary Clinton's infamous comment about how the U.S. could "totally obliterate" Iran (in response to a hypothetical Iranian nuclear attack on Israel). Congressman Ron Paul recently reported that fellow representatives "have openly voiced support for a pre-emptive nuclear strike" on Iran, while the resolution soon to come before the House (H.J. Res. 362), supported by Democrats as well as Republicans, urges the imposition of the kind of sanctions and a naval blockade on Iran that would be tantamount to a declaration of war.

Stir in a string of new military bases the U.S. has been building within miles of the Iranian border, the repeated crescendos of U.S. military charges about Iranian-supplied weapons killing American soldiers in Iraq, and the revelation by Seymour Hersh, our premier investigative reporter, that, late last year, the Bush administration launched -- with the support of the Democratic leadership in Congress -- a $400 million covert program "designed to destabilize [Iran's] religious leadership," including cross-border activities by U.S. Special Operations Forces and a low-level war of terror through surrogates in regions where Baluchi and Ahwazi Arab minorities are strongest. (Precedents for this terror campaign include previous CIA-run campaigns in Afghanistan in the 1980s, using car bombs and even camel bombs against the Russians, and in Iraq in the 1990s, using car bombs and other explosives in an attempt to destabilize Saddam Hussein's regime.)

Add to this combustible mix the unwillingness of the Iranians to suspend their nuclear enrichment activities, even for a matter of weeks, while negotiating with the Europeans over their nuclear program. Throw in as well various threats from Iranian officials in response to the possibility of a U.S. or Israeli attack on their nuclear facilities, and any number of other alarums, semi-official predictions ("A senior defense official told ABC News there is an 'increasing likelihood' that Israel will carry out such an attack..."), reports, rumors, and warnings -- and it's hardly surprising that the political Internet has been filled with alarming (as well as alarmist) pieces claiming that an assault on Iran may be imminent.

The rest of the article is HERE.