The Iron Wall
04.30.08 (4:39 am) [edit]NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN The Iron Wall Colonisation of Palestine Agreement with Arabs Impossible at present Zionism Must Go Forward Originally published in Russian under the title O Zheleznoi Stene in Rassvyet, 4 November 1923 "The Jewish Herald" (South Africa) Friday, 26th November, 1937 By Vladimir Jabotinsky It is an excellent rule to begin an article with the most important point, but this time, I find it necessary to begin with an introduction , and, moreover , with a personal introduction. I am reputed to be an enemy of the Arabs, who wants to have them ejected from Palestine, and so forth. It is not true. Emotionally, my attitude to the Arabs is the same as to all other nations – polite indifference. Politically, my attitude is determined by two principles. First of all, I consider it utterly impossible to eject the Arabs from Palestine. There will always be two nations in Palestine – which is good enough for me, provided the Jews become the majority. And secondly, I belong to the group that once drew up the Helsingfors Programme , the programme of national rights for all nationalities living in the same State. In drawing up that programme, we had in mind not only the Jews, but all nations everywhere, and its basis is equality of rights. I am prepared to take an oath binding ourselves and our descendants that we shall never do anything contrary to the principle of equal rights, and that we shall never try to eject anyone. This seems to me a fairly peaceful credo. But it is quite another question whether it is always possible to realise a peaceful aim by peaceful means. For the answer to this question does not depend on our attitude to the Arabs, but entirely on the attitude of the Arabs to us and to Zionism. Now, after this introduction, we may proceed to the subject. Voluntary Agreement Not Possible. There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs. Not now, nor in the prospective future. I say this with such conviction, not because I want to hurt the moderate Zionists. I do not believe that they will be hurt. Except for those who were born blind, they realised long ago that it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting "Palestine" from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority. My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent. The native populations, civilised or uncivilised, have always stubbornly resisted the colonists, irrespective of whether they were civilised or savage. And it made no difference whatever whether the colonists behaved decently or not. The companions of Cortez and Pizzaro or ( as some people will remind us ) our own ancestors under Joshua Ben Nun, behaved like brigands; but the Pilgrim Fathers, the first real pioneers of North America, were people of the highest morality, who did not want to do harm to anyone, least of all to the Red Indians, and they honestly believed that there was room enough in the prairies both for the Paleface and the Redskin. Yet the native population fought with the same ferocity against the good colonists as against the bad. Every native population, civilised or not, regards its lands as its national home, of which it is the sole master, and it wants to retain that mastery always; it will refuse to admit not only new masters but, even new partners or collaborators. Arabs Not Fools This is equally true of the Arabs. Our Peace-mongers are trying to persuade us that the Arabs are either fools, whom we can deceive by masking our real aims, or that they are corrupt and can be bribed to abandon to us their claim to priority in Palestine , in return for cultural and economic advantages. I repudiate this conception of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are five hundred years behind us, they have neither our endurance nor our determination; but they are just as good psychologists as we are, and their minds have been sharpened like ours by centuries of fine-spun logomachy. We may tell them whatever we like about the innocence of our aims, watering them down and sweetening them with honeyed words to make them palatable, but they know what we want, as well as we know what they do not want. They feel at least the same instinctive jealous love of Palestine, as the old Aztecs felt for ancient Mexico, and the Sioux for their rolling Prairies. To imagine, as our Arabophiles do, that they will voluntarily consent to the realisation of Zionism, in return for the moral and material conveniences which the Jewish colonist brings with him, is a childish notion, which has at bottom a kind of contempt for the Arab people; it means that they despise the Arab race, which they regard as a corrupt mob that can be bought and sold, and are willing to give up their fatherland for a good railway system. All Natives Resist Colonists There is no justification for such a belief. It may be that some individual Arabs take bribes. But that does not mean that the Arab people of Palestine as a whole will sell that fervent patriotism that they guard so jealously, and which even the Papuans will never sell. Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonised. That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of "Palestine" into the "Land of Israel." Arab Comprehension Some of us have induced ourselves to believe that all the trouble is due to misunderstanding – the Arabs have not understood us, and that is the only reason why they resist us; if we can only make it clear to them how moderate our intentions really are, they will immediately extend to us their hand in friendship. This belief is utterly unfounded and it has been exploded again and again. I shall recall only one instance of many. A few years ago, when the late Mr. Sokolow was on one of his periodic visits to Palestine, he addressed a meeting on this very question of the "misunderstanding." He demonstrated lucidly and convincingly that the Arabs are terribly mistaken if they think that we have any desire to deprive them of their possessions or to drive them our of the country, or that we want to oppress them. We do not even ask for a Jewish Government to hold the Mandate of the League of Nations. One of the Arab papers, " El Carmel," replied at the time, in an editorial article, the purport of which was this : The Zionists are making a fuss about nothing. There is no misunderstanding. All that Mr. Sokolow says about the Zionist intentions is true, but the Arabs know that without him. Of course, the Zionists cannot now be thinking of driving the Arabs out of the country, or oppressing them, not do they contemplate a Jewish Government. Quite obviously, they are now concerned with one thing only- that the Arabs should not hinder their immigration. The Zionists assure us that even immigration will be regulated strictly according to the economic needs of Palestine. The Arabs have never doubted that: it is a truism, for otherwise there can be no immigration. No "Misunderstanding" This Arab editor was actually willing to agree that Palestine has a very large potential absorptive capacity, meaning that there is room for a great many Jews in the country without displacing a single Arab. There is only one thing the Zionists want, and it is that one thing that the Arabs do not want, for that is the way by which the Jews would gradually become the majority, and then a Jewish Government would follow automatically, and the future of the Arab minority would depend on the goodwill of the Jews; and a minority status is not a good thing, as the Jews themselves are never tired of pointing out. So there is no "misunderstanding". The Zionists want only one thing, Jewish immigration; and this Jewish immigration is what the Arabs do not want. This statement of the position by the Arab editor is so logical, so obvious, so indisputable, that everyone ought to know it by heart, and it should be made the basis of all our future discussions on the Arab question. It does not matter at all which phraseology we employ in explaining our colonising aims, Herzl's or Sir Herbert Samuel's. Colonisation carries its own explanation, the only possible explanation, unalterable and as clear as daylight to every ordinary Jew and every ordinary Arab. Colonisation can have only one aim, and Palestine Arabs cannot accept this aim. It lies in the very nature of things, and in this particular regard nature cannot be changed. The Iron Wall We cannot offer any adequate compensation to the Palestinian Arabs in return for Palestine. And therefore, there is no likelihood of any voluntary agreement being reached. So that all those who regard such an agreement as a condition sine qua non for Zionism may as well say "non" and withdraw from Zionism. Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach. That is our Arab policy; not what we should be, but what it actually is, whether we admit it or not. What need, otherwise, of the Balfour Declaration? Or of the Mandate? Their value to us is that outside Power has undertaken to create in the country such conditions of administration and security that if the native population should desire to hinder our work, they will find it impossible. And we are all of us ,without any exception, demanding day after day that this outside Power, should carry out this task vigorously and with determination. In this matter there is no difference between our "militarists" and our "vegetarians". Except that the first prefer that the iron wall should consist of Jewish soldiers, and the others are content that they should be British. We all demand that there should be an iron wall. Yet we keep spoiling our own case, by talking about "agreement" which means telling the Mandatory Government that the important thing is not the iron wall, but discussions. Empty rhetoric of this kind is dangerous. And that is why it is not only a pleasure but a duty to discredit it and to demonstrate that it is both fantastic and dishonest. Zionism Moral and Just Two brief remarks: In the first place, if anyone objects that this point of view is immoral, I answer: It is not true: either Zionism is moral and just ,or it is immoral and unjust. But that is a question that we should have settled before we became Zionists. Actually we have settled that question, and in the affirmative. We hold that Zionism is moral and just. And since it is moral and just, justice must be done, no matter whether Joseph or Simon or Ivan or Achmet agree with it or not. There is no other morality. Eventual Agreement In the second place, this does not mean that there cannot be any agreement with the Palestine Arabs. What is impossible is a voluntary agreement. As long as the Arabs feel that there is the least hope of getting rid of us, they will refuse to give up this hope in return for either kind words or for bread and butter, because they are not a rabble, but a living people. And when a living people yields in matters of such a vital character it is only when there is no longer any hope of getting rid of us, because they can make no breach in the iron wall. Not till then will they drop their extremist leaders, whose watchword is "Never!" And the leadership will pass to the moderate groups, who will approach us with a proposal that we should both agree to mutual concessions. Then we may expect them to discuss honestly practical questions, such as a guarantee against Arab displacement, or equal rights for Arab citizen, or Arab national integrity. And when that happens, I am convinced that we Jews will be found ready to give them satisfactory guarantees, so that both peoples can live together in peace, like good neighbours. But the only way to obtain such an agreement, is the iron wall, which is to say a strong power in Palestine that is not amenable to any Arab pressure. In other words, the only way to reach an agreement in the future is to abandon all idea of seeking an agreement at present. From the text at http://www.jabotinsky.org/Jab...%20Wall.doc (with some corrections of typography and grammar - emphasis is in the original). THE ETHICS OF THE IRON WALL By Vladimir Jabotinsky 'The Jewish Standard', 5/9/1941 (London). Originally Published in Rassviet (Paris) 11/11/1923 as a continuation of the previous article. Let us go back to the Helsingfors Programme. Since I am one of those who helped to draft it, I am naturally not disposed to question the justice of the principles advocated there. The programme guarantees citizenship equality, and national self-determination. I am firmly convinced that any impartial judge will accept this programme as the ideal basis for peaceful and neighbourly collaboration between two nations. But it is absurd to expect the Arabs to have the mentality of an impartial judge; for in this conflict they are not the judges; but one of the contending parties. And after all, our chief question is whether the Arabs, even if they believed in peaceful collaboration they would agree to have any "neighbours", even good neighbours, in the country which they regard as their own. Not even those who try to move us with high-sounding phrases will dare to deny that national homogeneity is more convenient than natural diversity. So why should a nation that is perfectly content with its isolation admit to its country even good neighbours in any considerable number? I want neither your honey nor your sting", is a reasonable answer. But apart from this fundamental difficulty, why must it be the Arabs who should accept the Helsingfors Programme, or, in that matter any programme for a State which has a mixed national population? To make such a demand is to ask for the impossible. The Springer theory is not more than 30 years old. And no nation, not even the most civilised, has yet agreed to apply this theory honestly in practice. Even the Czechs, under the leadership of Masaryk, the teacher of all autonomists, could not would not do it. Among the Arabs, even their intellectuals have never heard of this theory. But these same intellectuals would know that a minority always suffers everywhere: the Christians in Turkey, the Moslems in India, the Irish under the British, the Poles and Czechs under the Germans, now the Germans under the Poles and Czechs, and so forth, without end. So that one must be intoxicated with rhetoric to expect the Arabs to believe that the Jews, of all the people in the world, will alone prove able, or will, at least, honestly intend to realise an idea that has not succeeded with other nations who are with much greater authority. If I insist on this point, it is not because I want the Jews, too, to abandon the Helsigfors Programme as the basis of a future modus vivendi. On the contrary we- at least the writer of these lines – believe in this programme as much as we believe in our ability to give effect to it in political life, though all precedents have failed. But it would be useless now to the Arabs. They would not understand, and they would not place any trust in its principles: they would not be able to appreciate them. II And since it is useless, it must also be harmful. It is incredible what political simpletons Jews are. They shut their eyes to one of the most elementary rules of life, that you must not "meet halfway" those who do not want to meet you. There was a typical example in old Russia, when one of the oppressed nations, with one accord, launched a crusade against the Jews, boycotting them and pogroming them. At the same time, this nation was fighting to gain its own autonomy, without any attempt to conceal it means to use its autonomy for the purpose of oppressing the Jews. Worse than before. And yet, Jewish politicians and writers, (even Jewish nationalists) considered it their duty to support the autonomist efforts of their enemy, on the ground that autonomy is a sacred cause. It is remarkable how we Jews regard it as our duty to stand up and cheer whenever the Marsellaise is played, even if it is played by Haman himself, and Jewish heads are smashed to its accompaniment. I was once told of a man who was an ardent Democrat and always whenever he heard the Marsellaise, he stood stiffly attention, like a soldier on parade. One night burglars broke into his house, and one of them played the Marsellaise. This sort of thing is not morality, it is twaddle. Human society is built up on the basis of mutual advantage. If you take away the mutual principle right becomes a falsehood. Each man who passes my window in the street has a right to live only in so far as he recognises my right to live; but if he is determined to kill me, I cannot admit that he has any right to live. And that is true also of nations. Otherwise, the world would become a jungle of wild beasts, where not only the weak, but also those who have any scrap of feeling would be exterminated. The world must be a place of co-operation and mutual goodwill. If we are to live we should all live in the same way, and if we are to die we should all die in the same way. But there is no morality, no ethics that concedes the right of a glutton to gorge, while more tempered people die of starvation. There is only one possible morality, that of humanity, and in practice it amounts in our particular instance to this: if besides the Helsingfors Programme we had our pocket full of concessions of every kind, including our willingness to participate in some fantastic Arab Federation od morza do morza (from sea to sea) negotiations with regard to them would still be possible only if the Arabs would first consent to the creation of a Jewish Palestine. Our ancestors knew that very well. And the Talmud quotes a very instructive legal action – which has a direct bearing on this matter. Two people walking along the road find a piece of cloth. One of them says: " I found it. It is mine:" But the other says: " No: that is not true: I found the cloth, and it is mine: " The judge to whom they appeal cuts the cloth in two, and each of these obstinate folk gets half. But there is another version of this action. It is only one of the two claimants who is obstinate: the other, on the contrary, has determined to make the world wonder at this magnanimity. So he says: " We both found the cloth, and therefore I ask only a half of it, because the second belongs to B. But B. insists that he found it, and that he alone is entitled to it. In this case, the Talmud recommends a wise Judgment, that is, how very disappointing to our magnanimous gentleman. The judge says: " There is agreement about one half of the cloth. A. admits that it belongs to B. So it is only the second half that is in dispute. We shall, therefore divide this into two halves: And the obstinate claimant gets three-quarters of the cloth, while the ”gentleman" has only one quarter, and serve him right. It is a very fine thing to be a gentleman, but it is no reason for being an idiot. Our ancestors knew that. But we have forgotten it. We should bear it in mind. Particularly, since we are very badly situated in this matter of concessions. There is not much that we can concede to Arab nationalism, without destroying Zionism. We cannot abandon the effort to achieve a Jewish majority in Palestine. Nor can we permit any Arab control of our immigration, or join an Arab Federation. We cannot even support Arab movement, it is at present hostile to us and consequently we all, including even the pro-Arab rhetoriomongers, rejoice at every defeat sustained by this movement, not only adjacent Transjordan, and Syria, but even in Morocco. And this state of affairs will continue, because it cannot be otherwise, until one day the iron wall will compel the Arabs to come to an arrangement with Zionism once and for all. III Let us consider for a moment the point of view of those to whom this seems immoral. We shall trace the root of the evil to this – that we are seeking to colonise a country against the wishes of its population, in other words, by force. Everything else that is undesirable grows out of this root with axiomatic inevitability. What then is to be done? The simplest way out would be to look for a different country to colonise. Like Uganda. But if we look more closely into the matter we shall find that the same evil exists there, too. Uganda also has a native population, which consciously or unconsciously as in every other instance in history, will resist the coming of the colonisers. It is true that these natives happen to be black. But that does not alter the essential fact. If it is immoral to colonise a country against the will of its native population, the same morality must apply equally to the black man as to the white. Of course, the blackman may not be sufficiently advanced to think of sending delegations to London, but he will soon find some kindhearted white friends, who will instruct him. Though should these natives even prove utterly helpless, like children, the matter would only become worse. Then if colonisation is invasion and robbery, the greatest crime of all would be to rob helpless children. Consequently, colonisation in Uganda is also immoral, and colonisation in any other place in the world, whatever it may be called, is immoral. There are no more uninhabited islands in the world. In every oasis there is a native population settled from times immemorial, who will not tolerate an immigrant majority or an invasion of outsiders. So that if there is any landless people in the world, even its dream of a national home must be an immoral dream. . Those who are landless must remain landless to all eternity. The whole earth has been allocated. Basta: Morality has said so: From the Jewish point of view, morality has a particularly interesting appearance. It is said that we Jews number 15 million people scattered throughout the world. Half of them are now literally homeless, poor, hunted wretches. The number of Arabs totals 38 million. They inhabit Morocco, Algeria, Tunis, Tripoli, Egypt, Syria, Arabia and Iraq – an area that apart from desert equals the size of half Europe. There are in this vast area 16 Arabs to the square mile. It is instructive to recall by way of comparison that Sicily has 352 and England 669 inhabitants to the square mile. It is still more instructive to recall that Palestine constitutes about one two hundredth part of this area. Yet if homeless Jewry demands Palestine for itself it is "immoral" because it does not suit the native population. Such morality may be accepted among cannibals, but not in a civilised world. The soil does not belong to those who possess land in excess but to those who do not possess any. It is an act of simple justice to alienate part of their land from those nations who are numbered among the great landowners of the world, in order to provide a place of refuge for a homeless, wandering people. And if such a big landowning nation resists which is perfectly natural – it must be made to comply by compulsion. Justice that is enforced does not cease to be justice. This is the only Arab policy that we shall find possible. As for an agreement, we shall have time to discuss that later. All sorts of catchwords are used against Zionism; people invoke Democracy, majority rule national self-determination. Which means, that the Arabs being at present the majority in Palestine, have the right of self-determination, and may therefore insist that Palestine must remain an Arab country. Democracy and self-determination are sacred principles, but sacred principles like the Name of the Lord must not be used in vain –to bolster up a swindle, to conceal injustice. The principle of self-determination does not mean that if someone has seized a stretch of land it must remain in his possession for all time, and that he who was forcibly ejected from his land must always remain homeless. Self-determination means revision – such a revision of the distribution of the earth among the nations that those nations who have too much should have to give up some of it to those nations who have not enough or who have none, so that all should have some place on which to exercise their right of self-determination. And now when the whole of the civilised world has recognised that Jews have a right to return to Palestine, which means that the Jews are, in principle, also "citizens" and "inhabitants" of Palestine, only they were driven out, and their return must be a lengthy process, it is wrong to contend that meanwhile the local population has the right to refuse to allow them to come back and to that "Democracy”. The Democracy of Palestine consists of two national groups, the local group and these who were driven out, and the second group is the larger. * A reference to the national-cultural autonomy theory of Otto Bauer and Karl Renner (who used the pseudonym of Rudolf Brenner) advanced at the second International by Austrian Social Democrats and adopted by the Jewish Russian Bund (anti-Zionist socialists). http://www.jabotinsky.org/Jab... (Journals of original Publication not given)
Yes, It Is Apartheid
04.30.08 (4:36 am) [edit]NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN Send Page To a Friend Yes, It Is Apartheid By Yossi Sarid 26/04/08 "Haaretz" -- - The anchorwoman was clearly shocked: I don't have time now to respond to what you have said, she told the former U.S. president, allowing Jimmy Carter to make a narrow escape from her clutches. Then she added that she did not want to imagine what would happen to him if he bumped into her colleague from the security affairs desk in Channel 2's dark alley. And the pundit sitting there, sunk in deep thought as always, nodded his heavy head, confirming: He's lucky, the bastard, that we didn't gang up on him and cut him to shreds. That's how it is here: The rulers set the tone, and the media begins to gripe: Not only did Carter's mission not help, it did damage. He alone was the reason Gilad Shalit was not ransomed out of captivity during the holiday. That's what happens when an enemy of the human race, the twin of the Twin Towers' bin Laden, sticks his nose where it does not belong. Let's let old Carter be, so he may let sleeping warriors lie; he will not be back. The contents of his words, however, should not be ignored. "Apartheid," he said, "apartheid" - a dark, scary word coined by Afrikaners and meaning segregation, racial segregation. Advertisement What does he want from us, that evil man: What do we have to do with apartheid? Does a separation fence constitute separation? Do separate roads for Jewish settlers and Palestinians really separate? Are Palestinian enclaves between Jewish settlements Bantustans? There is no hint of similarity between South Africa and Israel, and only a sick mind could draw such shadowy connections between them. Roadblocks and inspections at every turn; licenses and permits for every little matter; the arbitrary seizure of land; special privileges in water use; cheap, hard labor; forming and uniting families by bureaucratic whim - none of these are apartheid, in any way. They are an incontrovertible security necessity, period. The white Afrikaners, too, had reasons for their segregation policy; they, too, felt threatened - a great evil was at their door, and they were frightened, out to defend themselves. Unfortunately, however, all good reasons for apartheid are bad reasons; apartheid always has a reason, and it never has a justification. And what acts like apartheid, is run like apartheid and harasses like apartheid, is not a duck - it is apartheid. Nor does it even solve the problem of fear: Today, everyone knows that all apartheid will inevitably reach its sorry end. One essential difference remains between South Africa and Israel: There a small minority dominated a large majority, and here we have almost a tie. But the tiebreaker is already darkening on the horizon. Then the Zionist project will come to an end if we don't choose to leave the slave house before being visited by a fatal demographic plague. It is entirely clear why the word apartheid terrifies us so. What should frighten us, however, is not the description of reality, but reality itself. Even Ehud Olmert has understood at last that continuing the present situation is the end of the Jewish democratic state, as he recently said. The Palestinians are unfortunate because they have not produced a Nelson Mandela; the Israelis are unfortunate because they have not produced an F.W. de Klerk. © Copyright 2008 Haaretz. All rights reserved
Thousands in Gaza protest against Israeli blockade
04.30.08 (4:31 am) [edit]GAZA (AFP) - Thousands of Hamas supporters on Friday demonstrated in Gaza to demand that Israel lift its crippling blockade of the impoverished Palestinian territory. The protesters massed in the north and the south of the narrow strip of land near border crossings into Israel and Egypt. In Jabaliya, in northern Gaza, some 5,000 people waved Hamas flags and brandished banners proclaiming "No to the siege!" "Hamas is working in a positive manner to end the siege and achieve a truce," Hamas official Yussef al-Shrafi told the crowd. In Rafah, about 1,000 people called for Egypt to open its border crossing, the only one that bypasses Israel. "We do not represent a threat to Egypt's security but we ask our brothers to open Rafah and break the siege," said Abu al-Sibbah, a Hamas leader. Israel imposed its blockade after Hamas seized power in the territory last June. On Thursday, UN agencies suspended aid distribution to Gaza saying they had run out of fuel. A UN envoy urged Israel to allow fuel supplies in and called on Hamas not to prevent its distribution.
Israel Rejects Hamas Truce Offer
04.30.08 (4:27 am) [edit]Israel Rejects Hamas Truce Offer [] 4/25/2008 12:10:47 PM Israel on Friday rejected the Hamas proposal for a six-month truce in the Gaza Strip, saying that the offer was intended to buy time for the Islamist extremist group to re-group rather than to bring peace in the area. Israeli Government spokesman Mark Regev said Friday that the offer does not appear to be “serious” and added that what Hamas seem to be proposing is 'the quiet before the storm.' Ragev said that Israel wants peace in Gaza, but added that a truce is possible only if the Gaza militants stop attacking Israel, give up violence and stop the smuggling of arms from Egypt into the Palestinian territory. Earlier Hamas had offered a six-month truce in Gaza if Israel lifts its blockade of the Palestinian territory. The Islamist group also offered to extend the truce to the occupied West Bank if the initial phase of the deal was implemented successfully. Get All the Market Sensitive News & Alerts Delivered Right to Your Desktop Al Sadr Says His Threat Is Targeted On U.S.-led Foreign Troops [] 4/25/2008 11:52:01 AM Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr announced Friday that his threat to unleash an “open war” unless a crackdown against his Mahdi Army militia is stopped is targeted on U.S.-led foreign troops. In a sermon during Friday prayers in Baghdad's militia stronghold of Sadr City, imam Sheik Hassan al-Edhari clarified that the Iraqi troops will be spared from the threat. He also urged Iraqi soldiers and policemen “not to support the occupiers in combating your brothers.” He called for an “end to the shedding of Iraqi blood” as a result of “a war between our Iraqi brothers.” Al-Sadr's message comes in the wake of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's meeting with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband on Thursday. Al-Maliki vowed that the crackdown on Shiite militias would continue, adding that the government's fight against the militants has won political support from Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish political parties. On Friday, the U.S. military said 10 militants were killed in a joint crackdown by U.S. and Iraqi forces in overnight clashes in northeastern Baghdad. Also on Friday, a U.S. soldier was killed in a roadside bomb blast south of Baghdad, the U.S. military said. With this, the number of American troops killed in April has risen to 39, according to the Associated Press.
Latest arrest exposes Israel's fifth column in the U.S.
04.30.08 (4:22 am) [edit]NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN Send Page To a Friend Pollard's Ghost Latest arrest exposes Israel's fifth column in the U.S. By Justin Raimondo 25/04/08 "Anti War" -- -Whenever the subject of Israeli spying in the U.S. comes up, the journalistic handle is always the same: the infamous Jonathan Pollard. His ghost hovers over the increasingly troubled "special relationship" – and he isn't even dead yet. Convicted of espionage in 1986, Pollard did such damage to U.S. national security that top intelligence officials threatened to resign if Bill Clinton acceded to Israeli demands to pardon him. He is serving a life sentence for stealing secrets deemed so valuable that the Soviet Union reportedly agreed to trade them for the release of tens of thousands of Russian Jews for resettlement in Israel. Pollard had top-secret clearance and was able to procure a long list of documents for his Israeli handlers, but what baffled – and alarmed – top intelligence officials was that he had known the titles and in some cases the serial numbers of specific documents. These could only have been provided by someone in a much higher pay grade – a top official privy to ultra-sensitive, need-to-know secrets. Continued
Blockade Halts Food Aid To Gaza
04.30.08 (4:19 am) [edit]NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN Send Page To a Friend Blockade Halts Food Aid To Gaza Michael Bailey: 70,000 Gazans have no drinking water; UN can't feed 700,000 refugees Friday April 25th, 2008 The Gaza Strip has fallen eerily silent as day-to-day life grinds to a halt in the face of an Israeli fuel blockade that has forced the UN to halt its food shipments into the territory. Michael Bailey of Oxfam in Jerusalem tells The Real News Network that some 300,000 Gaza residents have drinking water at home for less than five hours per day, every four days, and the UN can no longer get supplies to the 700,000 refugees living in Gaza. Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Why Palestinian Unity is Not an Option
04.30.08 (4:16 am) [edit]NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN Send Page To a Friend Why Palestinian Unity is Not an Option By Ramzy Baroud 25/04/08 "ICH" -- - Just days after the Hamas-Fatah clash last June in Gaza, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas looked firm and composed as he shook hands with members of his new emergency government. He made sure his move appeared as legitimate as possible, issuing decrees that outlawed the armed militias of Hamas, and also suspended consequential clauses in the Palestinian Basic Law, which had thus far served as a constitution. The Basic Law stipulates that the Palestinian parliament must approve of any government for it to be constitutional. Abbas simply decreed that such a clause was no longer valid, effectively robbing Palestinians of one of their greatest collective achievements — democracy. This system, when truly representative, is indeed precious and meaningful. Considering the impossible circumstances under which Palestinian democracy in particular was spawned and nurtured — military occupation, international pressure, extreme poverty — it was also deeply historic. Contrary to the conventional wisdom that followed the US occupation in Iraq, Arabs showed themselves as ultimately capable of carrying out democratic process. Unfortunately, the achievement of democracy cannot guarantee its preservation. Almost immediately after Hamas’ sizable election victory in January 2006, both local and international forces scrambled to suffocate and reverse the outcome of this vote. Conceited intellectuals wrote about the incompatibility of Islam and democracy, politicians decried Hamas’ victory as signalling the encroachment of militarism and extremism, and world leaders clambered to affiliate themselves with the ‘legitimate’ Abbas, as opposed to the ‘illegitimate’ Hamas. Indeed, it was a mockery. For Israel, the clash between Abbas’ Fatah and Islamic Hamas was a golden opportunity, one that is comparable to the benefits gleaned from another opportune moment, the terrorist attacks of September 11. The latter was recently — and not for the first time — described by Israeli Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu as good for Israel (Haaretz, April 16). The Palestinian fight was also good for Israel; no longer would the nuisance of Palestinian democracy compete with Israel’s self-ascribed “only democracy in the Middle East.” More, Palestinians were once again depicted as the unruly mob, incapable of producing responsible peacemakers and creating an environment of ‘security’, which the state of Israel so often claims to covet. As for Abbas and his ministers, they knew too well that the newfound American-Israeli fondness for them was conditional. After all they are the same people, holding the same position and playing the same roles that they have always played. They are the ministers, aides, friends and officials of late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, who were, like their president, repeatedly shunned. They also understood well their new appeal in representing the antithesis to Hamas. Rather than rejecting the role of the stooges, Abbas’ cabinet ministers played along. Suddenly the conflict that was hitherto seen as one between Israel and the Palestinians became one between Abbas and his supporters (Israel and the US) on one hand, and Hamas alone on the other. The problem as reported in mainstream media ceased being about settlements, occupation, and violations of international law, but rather about the anti-democratic ‘forces of darkness’ in Gaza as opposed to the forces of peace and civilization in Ramallah and Tel Aviv. To re-enforce these highly deceptive images with ‘action’, Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert initiated their quest for illusive peace. This started in Annapolis and was followed by regular, although equally futile ‘rounds’ of talks in Israel. Few expected such meets to yield any meaningful outcomes; they were clearly intended only to further isolate Hamas and underscore the Abbas-Israeli alliance. In order for the show to go on, Hamas and Fatah will not be allowed to reconcile, at least not until Israel and the US decide to change tactics. Of course this doesn’t mean that there is no basis for reconciliation. Palestinian factionalism equals capitulation in the face of a harsh, emboldened enemy. Recently we have seen the 2005 Cairo Agreement, the 2007 Mecca Agreement and the March 2008 Yemen Agreement. But to win the approval of Israel in the West Bank — and to avoid the tragic fate of Gaza — Abbas is not interested in the points of agreement, but rather in the points of discord. Aljazeera reported that Azzam al-Ahmad, the Fatah member who signed the Hamas-Fatah memorandum in March, was chastised openly for keeping Abbas “in the dark”, regarding the nature of the agreement. Al-Ahmad insisted that Abbas knew exactly what the agreement stipulated. It seems that a document that merely highlights a course of action towards full reconciliation between the two parties was too much for Israel to accept. Not even the blood of over 120 Palestinians in Gaza, who were killed in the matter of six days in early March, seemed a strong enough motive to override Israel’s threats of Palestinian unity signalling the end of the futile ‘peace process’. And, of course, there is the money trail. Just days before the Yemen fiasco, the US had agreed to transfer $150 million in support to the Palestinian Authority as “part of past pledges to boost President Mahmoud Abbas’ government.” Boost against whom? Surely not Israel. Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad reportedly said it was “the largest sum of assistance of any kind to be transferred to the Palestinian Authority by any donor in one tranche since the Palestinian Authority’s inception (in 1994).” Heart-rending indeed, Mr Fayyad, but one must wonder how much of the money will go to feed the starving in Gaza, or rehabilitate the refugee camps of the West Bank? While such noble efforts by the UN’s John Dugard, former US President Jimmy Carter and Bishop Desmond Tutu have brought much needed attention to the plight of Palestinians and Gazans in particular, PA officials are too busy attending donor’s conferences and issuing empty statements which few even bother to read. They act as if they are a neutral party caught in the middle of religious fanatics and Israel. Their fight no longer seems even remotely related to Palestine or its people. These are hardly the qualities of any liberation movement or leadership anywhere, in any period of history, recent or otherwise. Neither Abbas nor Fayyad are likely to be the exception. Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).
An Act Of War
04.30.08 (4:13 am) [edit]NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN Send Page To a Friend An Act Of War Interview: Seymour Hersh By Sarah Brown 25/04/08 "Al Jazeera " -- - Seymour Hersh, one of the world's best known investigative journalists, has turned his attention to the mysterious and controversial bombing of a Syrian facility by Israel last year. Al Jazeera spoke to him about the bombing, why he feels the media failed on the story, and what it means for the Middle East. Q: Why did Israel bomb a target in Syria? A: Well I don't have the answers to that direct question - one thing that is terribly significant is that the Israel and its chief ally the US have chosen to say nothing officially about this incident and that's what got me interested - whoever heard of a country bombing another one and not talking about it and thinking they had the right somehow not to talk about it? In 1981 when Israel bombed the Osirak reactor in Iraq they were very noisy and public about it. In this case they said nothing publicly, but after a few weeks they began to leak [information]. They began to tell certain reporters very grandiose sort of stories about what was going on - ships arriving with illicit materials, offloaded by people in protective gear ... from a port in the Mediterranean across to the bomb site, commando's on the ground, soil samples. And none of it turned out to be true, really, at least I could find no demonstrable evidence for it. And so I have to say, that if this article I did generates a decision by Israel to go public with its overwhelming dossier that will answer any questions well that's great ... but they have not and [I find awful] the hubris, the arrogance of thinking that you could go commit an act of war by any definition and then say nothing about it. Syria of course compounded the problem by being hapless and feckless in response. It took them, I think, until October 1, almost four weeks after the incident before the president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, acknowledged it had actually been bombed. Q: Why was Syria's reaction so muted? A: I think they're just hapless. I don't think they have any idea about the 24 hour news cycle – it’s just unbeknown to them. So what happened is: A raid takes place, they announced rather quickly there was an intrusion by the Israelis, they initially say after a couple of days that munitions were bombed, then the foreign minister says in Turkey four or five days after the incident that nothing was bombed however, bombs fell but nothing was hit. Then, three weeks later, the president says: "Oh, well actually a building was destroyed". You can't programme something that inept and that's a reality. They just weren't very good. But there are other factors. Q: Such as North Korea? A: There were North Koreans, as the Israelis claimed at the site. They were building a facility, it was a military facility, I think my guess would be. I was told two different things by various people inside Syria. One said it was perhaps a chemical facility for chemical warfare, another one said more persuasively to me that "no, it was for missiles - short range missiles to be used in case we're attacked by Israel, we'd respond asymmetrically with missiles." Q: Because they figure chemical weapons are of little use against a nuclear power? A: Yes. They're incinerated. And I'm told they made that decision much longer ago than we might think. I'm told they really devalued the use of a chemical warhead, certainly as a deterrent, because the response is nuclear. Q: Didn't some of your sources tell you there was evidence to support the theory that the US wanted Israel to test Syria's air defences because they are similar to those of Iran? A: In the beginning. This plan was staffed – by that I mean it was staffed by the US joint chiefs of staff, it was staffed by people in the vice president’s office. The little bit I know about that process was in the summer, months before the mission, there was a lot of talk about doing the mission [and] there was a report in the intelligence community from the Defence Intelligence Agency saying that Syria had dramatically increased the capability of its radar and command control system. [It said that it had] anti-aircraft radar close or parallel to that now known to be installed in Iran - so this was a way of testing the Syrian radar. You can walk all over Syria and no-one cares, it's a small country of 17 million people. But to go into Iran and check out radars by overflying any site, that leads to counter attack. The Israelis have been overflying with impunity, there's not much Syria can do and [the Israelis] knew Syria wouldn't do anything. So it was initially understood by my friends as a radar operation, it was only after the fact that they learned something else. It was very hard to get information [in Israel] because they have a bar against speaking and military censorship has been imposed on this issue. But I did get some people to say to me "Ah, that stuff about radar was [rubbish] - it was never going to happen, that's a way or a vehicle for us to get in". It seems clear from what I've learned from my American friends and the Syrians that the Israelis came right in and the only target they had was the one they bombed. They weren't looking at any radar site, they just went in and whacked it. So, then you really get to the next level of questions that I didn't really deal with in the article because it's so hypothetical – who authorised it? Who did they talk to? I mean Israel does not do a raid like this without talking to the White House and I can't find anybody that knew they were going to hit the facility beforehand. That could be that just I can't find it, and if not that doesn't mean it's not there, and it could also be that somebody like Dick Cheney, who has done this before, overrode the chain of command. So in other words, normally all this information about an Israeli attack would soak through to the joint chiefs, but he undercut that process perhaps - he's done it before in other incidents - but I just can't tell you for sure what happened here. Q: Was the raid's purpose to act as a potential deterrent to Iran? A: Of course that was the idea for the US, to let the Iranians know that despite the national intelligence estimate "We're ready to ... we have a proxy and the Israelis will go bang for us if we need." But of course, for Israel, this whole mission had another point of view. I think the Israelis were troubled by the North Koreans there [at the site], they were troubled by the building and they thought: "What the hell, whatever it is we're not going to let them be. We're going to hit the facility before it gets up, whatever it's going to be. If they thought it was nuclear I hope they'll show us, otherwise they just hit a building that wasn't done yet. And the [result] was terrific for them, because it gave Olmert a big jump, a big boost of support Q: You mean after the war in Lebanon in 2006? Absolutely. And also it was seen as a message to Bashar Assad, the president of Syria, who the Israelis believe has become cocky after the Hezbollah war because he was a big supporter of Hassan Nasrallah [Hezbollah leader] – he is Assad's big buddy. The Israelis thought that they could take him down a peg, and also the message to Bashar Assad is: "So, what's Iran doing for you now, buddy? We go and pop you in the head and is Iran doing anything?" And the American press and the international press end up being used on this one [story] in a scandalous way. Q: On media culpability, this was a big issue in the lead up to the war in 2003 - questionable evidence that supposedly provides a cause for war. Is the media being manipulated again here? A: The press was feckless on this and credulous and took everything at face value. For me the US press - I don't think they've come face to face with what happened here.... the newspapers missed without question the biggest moral story of the last decade, which is the illegal road to war in Iraq and we missed it. And that's not our job, it's not our job to miss that, our job is not to listen to the president. There were elements of the same pattern of "kiss-up" going on and that's very disturbing. Q: With US elections this year, do you think any foreign policy is going to change with a new president, especially towards Israel, Iran and Syria? A: Well certainly [it won’t change] with McCain, he's talking about not even changing the war, which I think is a big mistake. Somebody I know wrote a wonderful essay making the point that Iraq is a dead body, and David Petraeus, the general, and our ambassador Ryan Crocker they're the undertakers, and their job is to keep up with the rouge and the makeup on the body for the next six months until we get past the election - that's their goal. [On Israel] it's very hard, you know in America there's just no questioning. The American Jewish influence is enormous. There's a lot of money. I just wish many American Jews would read the Israeli papers - particularly Haaretz - more carefully and they would see there's really a vibrant criticism of the Israeli government ... and you just don't see that today. I'm Jewish and I'm not anti-Semitic and I'm not anti-Israel - [Israelis] understand that, just as by the way a lot of Americans don't understand that many of the leadership of Hamas and others. Not everyone spends their life there wanting to kill Jews, they're more willing than people would like to believe to co-exist, they just don't like the system the way it works now. Q: What do you think of Bush's legacy to the world? He's done more to terrify the world than anybody I know. The world is so much more dangerous. I have a very wise friend, born in Syria, who's a businessman in the West now. Right after the bombing began in Iraq he said to me: "This war will not change Iraq - Iraq will change you" and so I've seen it come and it's very scary. It's very scary to see how things are so fragile right now, nothing going on good in Lebanon nothing going on with Syria nothing going on with Iran ... We can't talk to people we don't like? We've got to negotiate, it's the only way we're going to resolve our problems.
Bush And Sharon Had Secret Deal To Expand West Bank, Claims Olmert
04.30.08 (4:09 am) [edit]A letter that President Bush personally delivered to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon four years ago has emerged as a significant obstacle to the president's efforts to forge a peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians during his last year in office. Ehud Olmert, the current Israeli prime minister, said this week that Bush's letter gave the Jewish state permission to expand the West Bank settlements that it hopes to retain in a final peace deal, even though Bush's peace plan officially calls for a freeze of Israeli settlements across Palestinian territories on the West Bank. In an interview this week, Sharon's chief of staff, Dov Weissglas, said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reaffirmed this understanding in a secret agreement reached between Israel and the United States in the spring of 2005, just before Israel withdrew from Gaza.
Why is zayde being busted for spying 25 years ago?
04.30.08 (4:05 am) [edit]American engineer Ben-Ami Kadish was arrested on Tuesday for allegedly providing an Israeli "handler" classified data on nuclear weapons, F-15 fighter jets, and the Patriot missile air defense system. 'Mossad did not have spies in US' US knows there have been no Israeli spies since Pollard, says David Kimchi. Kadish is 84 years old, and the crimes allegedly took place more than 25 years ago, between 1979 and 1985. Today Kadish lives an open, active life in a New Jersey retirement village where, according to a community newspaper, he and his wife open their succa every year to raise money for local charities and for Magen David Adom. According to the New Jersey Jewish News, "Ben-Ami grew up in what was then Palestine and fought with the Hagana. He also served in both the British and American military during World War II and is an ex-commander of the Jewish War Veterans Post 609 in Monroe." News accounts suggest that Kadish's handler was the same man who directed Jonathan Pollard. Probably to avoid any issue of statute-of-limitations, the indictment alleges that this zayde maintained ties to his handler until last month. Why now? Do federal prosecutors really see Kadish as a major criminal? More likely, Kadish is being used by American officials as a means to loosen support for Israel as the two countries enter a tenacious period of negotiations. This is a pattern of American pressure that repeats itself. The tactic is geared to embarrass American supporters of Israel, particularly congress members who oppose weapons sales to Israel's foes, dangerous concessions to the Palestinians, or the abrogation of previous commitments to Israel. During the last 30 years, particularly in times of tension, American officials claimed that Israel stole plans for the Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, diverted nuclear material from a US plant in the 1960s, illegally obtained krytron triggers for nuclear weapons, pilfered computer components from Patriot missiles, and used American technology on the Lavie aircraft that was later transferred to China. The 2005 arrest of two AIPAC staffers is more of the same, and they were charged under the creaky 1917 Espionage Act statute older than Kadish. For years, unnamed American spy-hunters have been looking for an accomplice to Jonathan Pollard. Leaks on these stories almost always took place on the eve of some contretemps with the US State Department. Today's case against Kadish reflects more the impatience of the US Secretary of State with Israel's decision to continue building in Jerusalem and in settlement blocs and to retain security roadblocks. To push ahead in the illusionary Annapolis process at all costs, the State Department must de-emphasize President George Bush's letter to Prime Minister Sharon stating that it is "unrealistic" to seek a "full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." With Bush on his way to Israel to celebrate Israel's 60th anniversary, what better way to deflate the goodwill and cut down the gifts the President is supposedly bringing? Lastly, in the twilight of the Bush administration, a presidential pardon for Jonathan Pollard is again being discussed, at least by Jewish and Israeli sources. Disclosure of another Pollard-like spy would be an effective tool to keep Pollard locked up for good. The author served as Israel's deputy chief of mission in Washington. He blogs at iconsultorg.blogspot.com
Pollard prosecutor: Spy arrest shows Israel lied to US
04.30.08 (4:01 am) [edit]Pollard prosecutor: Spy arrest shows Israel lied to US Pollard prosecutor Joseph E. DiGenova slams Israel, says Kadish arrest shows 'this was much larger espionage operation with sleeper cells in the United States than we understood or could have known at the time' Associated Press The arrest of Ben-Ami Kadish, accused of passing US military secrets to the same handler as convicted spy Jonathan Pollard , confirms that the espionage ring was larger than previously believed and that the Israelis lied about it, a former US prosecutor says. The similarities are quite eerie," said Joseph E. DiGenova, the US attorney who oversaw the 1980s-era Pentagon spy scandal that ensnared Pollard. "This was a much larger espionage operation with sleeper cells in the United States than we understood or could have known at the time," DiGenova said. Citing court papers, DiGenova said Pollard's handler, Yosef Yagur, used the same methods with Kadish that he did with Pollard, finding a US Citizen with security clearance to take classified materials from the workplace and letting him copy them. DiGenova said he and other investigators in the 1980s were convinced there were other Americans involved in the espionage. "It was obvious they had other people supplying the information so they could target the finds," he said. "You want to protect your ultimate source." 25 years later Charles S. Leeper, a former assistant US attorney who was the lead trial attorney in the Pollard case, called the Kadish case fascinating. "I am not aware of any other case where the government has brought espionage charges more than 25 years after the conduct in question," he said. DiGenova said the charges can be brought so long after the fact because the case can be viewed as a continuing conspiracy based on communications between Yagur and Kadish. "He was an agent in place then, and he's an agent in place now," he said. Earlier, IsraeliForeign Ministry spokesman Aryeh Mekel said the events in question dated back to the early 1980s, and that since then there has been much care taken to observe the directives of the prime ministers not to engage in any activities of this type in the US. Kadish, a US Army veteran, was arrested Tuesday and charged with conspiracy. He was released on $300,000 bail, but could face a possible death sentence on the charge
Ezra: New spy case won't harm U.S.-Israel ties
04.30.08 (3:50 am) [edit]Environment Minister and former senior security official Gideon Ezra said Wednesday that he does not believe Israel's relations with the U.S. will suffer in light of revelations that an American Army engineer spied for Israel in the 1980s. "Our strategic relationship with the United States is stronger than this," Ezra, a former deputy head of the Shin Bet security services, told Israel Radio. Ben-Ami Kadish was arrested Tuesday on charges that he over 20 years ago. But the former head of the Mossad espionage agency, Labor MK Danny Yatom, said Wednesday that the arrest had touched a nerve with Washington. "I think what primarily bothers the Americans is the feeling that Israel didn't tell them the whole truth two decades ago, in 1985, when the Pollard affair exploded," Yatom told Army Radio. The 84-year-old Kadish was to be charged with slipping classified documents about nuclear weapons, fighter jets and air defense missiles to an Israeli Consulate employee who also received information from convicted spy Jonathan Pollard, authorities said. Kadish acknowledged his spying in FBI interviews, and said he acted out of a belief that he was helping Israel, court papers said Yatom added: "The Americans asked if there are additional people that Israel ran or are running in the United States. The answer, to the best of my knowledge, was always no," Yatom said. "If what has been reported is true, and it appears it is true, and Ben-Ami Kadish kept in touch with what the Americans described as his old handler in Israel, I can call it unnecessary stupidity," the Labor MK said. A U.S. citizen, Kadish was scheduled to appear in U.S. District Court in Manhattan on Tuesday, where he was facing four counts of conspiracy, including allegations that he conspired to disclose U.S. national defense documents to Israel, and that he acted as an agent of the Israeli government. According to the criminal complaint, the activities occurred from 1979 through 1985 while the Connecticut-born Kadish worked at the U.S. Army's Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center in Dover, New Jersey. Yuval Steinitz, another official with inside knowledge of Israel's intelligence services, did not deny a second spy had operated in the U.S. in parallel with Pollard - but insisted such espionage ceased long ago. "The Americans know... that since Pollard was exposed in 1985, Israel doesn't recruit agents or receive classified material [in] the United States," said Steinitz, a former chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. Pensioner Affairs Minister Rafi Eitan, a former Mossad official who recruited Pollard to spy for Israel, said he was not aware of the Kadish case. "I have no idea," he said. "This is the first time I've heard about it. I'll go listen to the news." When asked whether he recognized Kadish's name, Eitan repeated, "I have no idea." Foreign Ministry spokesman Arye Mekel issued a response Wednesday, saying "since 1985, a great deal of care has gone into following the guidelines of every prime minister in Israel, which prohibit this kind of activity in the United States." "The relations between Israel and the United States have always been based on true friendship and similarity of values and interests," he added. The Prime Minister's Bureau said Tuesday that Israel was not familiar with the details of the case, and was examining the issue. Israeli officials fear that the case might strain Israel-U.S. relations. Kadish was accused of taking home classified documents several times and letting the Israeli government worker photograph them in Kadish's basement. The documents included information about nuclear weapons, a modified F-15 fighter jet, and the U.S. Patriot missile air defense system, the complaint said. According to the complaint, the Israeli government worker often provided Kadish with lists of wanted classified national defense documents. Prosecutors also allege Kadish conspired to hinder a communication with a law enforcement officer, and making a materially false statement to a law enforcement officer. Those charges stem from a conversation in which Kadish was allegedly told by the Israeli contact to lie to U.S. law enforcement agents and tell them that he didn't remember many of the relevant details. A day later, Kadish lied to FBI agents about his communications with the Israeli worker, the complaint said. According to U.S. law enforcement officials and various documents, Kadish got in touch with his Israeli contact after Israel agreed in 2004 to secretly acknowledge to American officials that Pollard was not an isolated case, thereby confirming longtime American suspicions that Pollard was not the only American spy working for Israel. Kadish admitted spying for Israel between 1979 and 1985, and then asked his Israeli contact what to do. The complaint said Kadish did not appear to receive any money in exchange for his suspected spying, just small gifts and restaurant meals. The complaint noted that Pollard was charged in November 1985 with espionage-related offense after he provided classified information to the same Israeli worker, among other people.
UN Cuts School Children's Meals
04.30.08 (3:40 am) [edit]NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN Send Page To a Friend UN Cuts School Children's Meals By Jeremy Lovell in London 23/04/08 "SMH" -- - A "SILENT tsunami" unleashed by costlier food is threatening 100million people, the United Nations has warned, revealing that its World Food Program has begun cutting the provision of school meals to some of the world's poorest children as the global food-price crisis worsens. Aid bodies said there was enough food to go round but the key was to help the poor afford it, and urged producing nations not to curb exports to stockpile food at home. In London, the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, said Britain would seek changes to EU biofuels targets if it was shown that planting crops for fuel was driving up food prices - a day after the bloc stood by its plans to boost biofuel use. Britain has also pledged $US900million ($947 million) to help the UN World Food Program alleviate its immediate problems and address longer-term solutions to "help put food on the table for nearly a billion people going hungry across the world". In a meeting of experts which Mr Brown called on Tuesday to discuss the crisis, the head of the World Food Program, Josette Sheeran, said a "silent tsunami" threatened to plunge more than 100 million people on every continent into hunger. "This is the new face of hunger; the millions of people who were not in the urgent hunger category six months ago but now are," she said. Riots in poor Asian and African countries have followed steep rises in food prices caused by many factors: rising demand from consumers in developing countries such as China and India, the effect of climate change on food production, dearer fuel and the conversion of land to grow crops for biofuel. Rice from Thailand has more than doubled in price this year. Ms Sheeran said artificially created shortages, such as those caused by countries that have slowed or stopped exports, were worsening the problem. The major food exporters Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Egypt and Cambodia have closed their stocks to safeguard supplies. "The world has been consuming more than it has been producing for the past three years, so stocks have been drawn down," Ms Sheeran said. "The world knows how to produce food and will do so. But we will have a couple of challenging years." Rising prices meant the UN food program was running short of money to buy food. A program providing meals for 450,000 Cambodian children has been suspended and Ms Sheeran said a similar program in Kenya, serving 1.2 million children, was facing cuts of nearly 50per cent. She said the cutbacks reflected "heartbreaking decisions" and were the biggest challenges of the program in 45 years. "The era of cheap food is over," said Rajat Nag, managing director general of the Asian Development Bank. He urged Asian governments not to distort markets with export curbs but use fiscal measures to help the poor. "We want to temper what we think is a bit of an over-reaction. There is still enough supply," he said. Mr Brown raised further doubts about the wisdom of using crops to help produce fuel, an idea whose recent popularity in the United States and Europe has been dented by fears that it harms the environment and makes food dearer. "We need to look closely at the impact on food prices and the environment of different production methods and to ensure we are more selective in our support [for biofuels]," Mr Brown said.