Santa Cruz Indymedia :
Santa Cruz Indymedia

Interview :: [none]

Oasis Of Peace / Israel

George Cadman of Free Radio Santa Cruz speaks with Adi Frish and Laila Najar about their life in the village of Neve Shalom/Wahat al Salam (Oasis Of Peace) in Israel. Laila, 20, and Adi, 21, are visiting communities across the U.S. this month to speak about their lives together. Adi, who is Jewish, and Laila, a Palestinian Arab, are addressing groups and congregations in eight cities through May 3. Lifelong friends, Adi Frish, 21, and Laila Najjar, 20, were among the first children born in Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam. Their parents decided in 1978 to live with the other side. Adi, who is Jewish, and Laila, a Palestinian Arab, grew up as neighbors and attended the village’s integrated, bilingual Primary School together.

Adi studied at the Rubin Music and Dance Academy in Jerusalem and, after working for a cellular phone company, is now a manager for a national chain of fitness and health clubs.

Laila studied Sociology and Social Sciences at Greek Orthodox High School in Ramla. She has worked as a Counselor at the NSWAS Summer Camp and is currently studying jewelry design at Jerusalem’s Academy for Art and Design.

Located mid-way between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam is a community of 50 families, half Palestinian and half Jewish, all with Israeli citizenship. Democratically governed by an elected mayor & city council, the village's mission is to demonstrate that Jews and Palestinians can live together as equals. During even the most difficult times in Israel, the residents of the village are committed to this ideal. Through their various departments and educational projects, they reach out to the surrounding communities, involving all those who want to participate in lectures, workshops, and classes that further the work of peace among Palestinians and Jews. They reach beyond their borders with the message that "Peace is Possible."

Download the Audio Interview about Oasis of Peace ( 19 megabytes / 27 minutes )

[ American Friends of Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam I Free Radio Santa Cruz I More Peace Talks from George of FRSC ]
OasisOfPeace.mp3 (8192 k)
George Cadman of Free Radio Santa Cruz speaks with Adi Frish and Laila Najar about their life in the village of Neve Shalom/Wahat al Salam (Oasis Of Peace)in Israel. Laila, 20, and Adi, 21, are visiting communities across the U.S. this month to speak about their lives together. Adi, who is Jewish, and Laila, a Palestinian Arab, are addressing groups and congregations in eight cities through May 3. Lifelong friends, Adi Frish, 21, and Laila Najjar, 20, were among the first children born in Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam. Their parents decided in 1978 to live with the other side. Adi, who is Jewish, and Laila, a Palestinian Arab, grew up as neighbors and attended the village’s integrated, bilingual Primary School together.

Adi studied at the Rubin Music and Dance Academy in Jerusalem and, after working for a cellular phone company, is now a manager for a national chain of fitness and health clubs.

Laila studied Sociology and Social Sciences at Greek Orthodox High School in Ramla. She has worked as a Counselor at the NSWAS Summer Camp and is currently studying jewelry design at Jerusalem’s Academy for Art and Design.

Located mid-way between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam is a community of 50 families, half Palestinian and half Jewish, all with Israeli citizenship. Democratically governed by an elected mayor & city council, the village's mission is to demonstrate that Jews and Palestinians can live together as equals. During even the most difficult times in Israel, the residents of the village are committed to this ideal. Through their various departments and educational projects, they reach out to the surrounding communities, involving all those who want to participate in lectures, workshops, and classes that further the work of peace among Palestinians and Jews. They reach beyond their borders with the message that "Peace is Possible."

New Comments are disabled, please visit


Re: Oasis Of Peace / Israel

This sounds great! I am glad to see this sort of effort. I note this is happening within Israel and not in the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority. Thanks to George for bringing this kind of content to her radio show.

Re: Oasis Of Peace / Israel

Becky, of course it is happening in Israel! You just proved the point, accidentally.

If it happened in Palestine Israeli tractors would probably demolish them! And they would be in constant state of fear and repression, due to the illegal occupation.

Who is the OCCUPYING country again? Thanks for proving the obvious Becky. :)

Re: Oasis Of Peace / Israel

First, thanks for an excellent interview.

Second, the Occupied Territories are actually controlled almost totally by the Israeli military. Nonviolent forms of resistance are responded to with great brutality by the Israeli occupying forces. Even Israeli peace activists demonstrating jointly with Palestinians in the Occupied Territories have been shot.

Re: Oasis Of Peace / Israel

FUCK THEM THEY DESERVED TO BE SHOT. TERRORISM WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. Israel cannot ILLEGALLY OCCUPY WHAT IS RIGHTFULLY THEIRS. YOU DUMBASSES. 1967 settled and righted historical wrongs. There is NO PALESTINE. GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK STUPID SKULLS. HAMAS PLO Al-AQSA ISLAMIC JiHAD AL-QAEDA - ALL NEED TO BE DESTROYED UTTERLY. UNTIL THIS INSANE Philistine TERRORISM ENDS THERE WILL BE NO PEACE. GIVE UP THIS FICTION CALLED "PALESTINE" IT IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE ISRAEL. DEATH TO THE ANTI-SEMITIC NAZIS. ARAFAT IS NEXT. 'As part of a series of photo journals about ordinary people's experiences, BBC News Online looks at the life of a survivor of a suicide bomb attack in Israel. Elad Wafa lives in Netanya, Israel. He is 27 years old and was born in Ethiopia. On the afternoon of 19 May 2002, a Palestinian suicide bomber let off his explosives near the vegetable stall where Elad worked. Elad suffered severe injuries and is now paralysed from the lower back downwards.' (BBC News article).

Re: Oasis Of Peace / Israel

Now there's a fine example of an enlightened Jew!

Re: Oasis Of Peace / Israel

i was delighted to see this article posted. so much much media attention (corporate and independant) is given to the violence, the occupation, etc etc. so it was nice to finally see a story about people who are actually doing something to solve this conflict and showing that coexistence is possible. unfortunately, that theme was disrupted by the above posters picking fights with eachother.

becky: ACTUALLY, these kinds of these DO happen in palestine. not permanaent cities, but temporary communities made up of israelis and palestinians have been set up in the occupied territories. as much as you would like to make out all palestinians to be hateful people, a good majority actually want peace.

to "me": watch your anti-semitism. that comment was a bit inappropriate.

Re: Oasis Of Peace / Israel

oh, and to "THE REAL DEAL": they deserve to be shot? funny how people like you call palestinians the terrorists and violent ones. take a look in the mirror.

Re: Oasis Of Peace / Israel

Response to "Of course not": If it happened in the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority, Laila Najar would be arrested and possibly lynched for being a "collaborater with Israel." Also: I dont believe that Israel is "illegally" occupying the West Bank because they were given legal authority in 1967 by UN resolution 242. IDF bulldozers destroy homes hiding tunnels, homes built without permits, homes of suicide bombers, and homes used by snipers. they also destroy homes in the path of the security barrier, but that is under emminent domain and home-owners receive compensation.

Note to Sad: I am well aware of the thousand year history of Jews and Arabs living together on the West Bank (the King of Jordans name for the area. Jews call it Judea and Samaria). I also have never said that the majority of the Palestinians are hateful people. I am disturbed by opinion polls among Palestinian Arabs that show 60% approve of the use of suicide bombers. I am also fully aware of the incitement within the PA that teaches little kids in school to hate Jews--call them pigs, and the hate-filled sermons that come from the Mosques every Friday urging the masses to kill the Jews. You should be too.

Re: Oasis Of Peace / Israel

"Jews call it Judea and Samaria"

actually not all jews call it thus as this has become a justification for jewish settelments in this area.

Bush and Sharon: Taking America Down

Judea and Samaria

"actually not all jews call it thus as this has become a justification for jewish settelments in this area."

Actually, it was called "Judea and Samaria" for thousands of years before the INVASION, OCCUPATION and ANNEXATION by Trans-Jordan...
You remember them, don't you? They're the guys that put the locals into camps, ethnically cleansed the territories of JEWS and built illegal settlements...They're also the same guys that MASSACRED 20,000 palestinians during the orgy of BLACK SEPTEMBER.

It's not an ILLEGAL occupation

It seems the majority opinion of those on the left is that the primary, original "crime" was Israel taking over "Palestinian" land. I don't think thats a legitimate reason.

The modern State of Israel was created by a UN resolution passed in Nov of 1947. This is not an "illegal" occupation. Land taken over in 1967 was deemed by the UN proper control since it was ruled to have been acquired in a defensive war. The UN passed resolution 242 in 1967 to confirm this. There was no State of Palestine in 1967.

The only time there were no Jews in Judea and Samaria (the names of the land for thousands of years and pre-dating any use of the word Palestine) was from 1948 to 1967 when Jordan unilatterally occupied Judea and Samaria with no objection from the UN or any other country. King Jordan ordered the entire region "cleansed" of Jews and renamed the area "the West Bank." No wonder the Israeli Jews bristle at both the name "West Bank."

The upshot is that UN resoluton 242 gave Israel control of Gaza and the West Bank until a peaceful solution could be negotiated. The Arabs have no interest in peace with Israel, and only 2 of the 23 Arab countries have recognized Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State.

What I dont get is why the leftists don't support Israel's right to exist, and despite your own particular religious views, Israel did vote in a Theocratic democracy which makes Judaism the state religion, but allows religious freedom to those of almost any religion.*

* except Jehovahs witnesses arent allowed to recruit

Re: Oasis Of Peace / Israel

Becky, not all the "left" thinks that Israel can't exist. I for one, as a Jew, want Israel to exist. I also want Palestine to exist. It's called coexistence! Wow, what a concept!

What many are against are NOT Jews or Judeasm or Israel. It is the continuous illegal occupation, the disregard for (U.S. vetoed) U.N. resolutions against Israel's POLICIES in the West Bank, and the humiliation and systematic destruction of Palestian Statehood.

To me it is about a two state solution. That is the only option. The plight of the Palestineans is no different from the plight of the Iraqi people. It is becomming evident. No doubt, Mossad has worked closely with U.S. Military and trained them in the ways of occupation. They do, after all, have allot of experience in surpressing and destroying a people.

When Palestinians are having check points in Israel, building a wall around Israel, demolishing their homes with bulldozers, and OCCUPYING ISRAEL, then we can say there is a level playing field.

This in NO WAY accepts the suicide bombers as ok. It's not ok, but it certainly is as understandable as the Freedom Fighters in Iraq.

It is up to ISRAEL to stop the chain of violence.

And by the way, it's just a cooincidence that there is always an attack on Israel just when it conveniently undermines any positive motions by Israel. Yeah sure. The Mossad has a long history of false flag operations.

Like the one where Mossad agents were in Palestine posing as Al CiaDuh and trying to recruit Palestinians.

You didn't answer my question

Response to I: You wrote: It is the continuous illegal occupation, the disregard for (U.S. vetoed) U.N. resolutions against Israel's POLICIES in the West Bank, and the humiliation and systematic destruction of Palestian Statehood. To me it is about a two state solution.

First, you have not addressed AT ALL my comments about UN resolution 242 in 1967 giving Israel stewardship over lands seized in the 1967 DEFENSIVE war. This made Israel's occupation legal. You keep ignoring this point. That's the problem. You have built a whole thesis based on one false concept. The West Bank and Gaza are not "Palestinian lands." Legally they are unallocated portions of the partition of the British Palestine mandate in 1947.

We can call them "the territories" or "disputed lands" but not "Palestinian lands" unless, you are intent on telling "the big lie" which if repeated often enough becomes true.

As to the multitudinous UN resolutions against Israel--- please note there are 23 Arab/Muslim countries and only one Jewish country (and a tiny one at that). 21 of these 23 countries are against the very existence of Israel as a Jewish State in the mideast. These resolutions condemn Israel regularly but cast a blind eye towards far greater abuses within the Arab countries. Try this: go to google and punch in "Sudan" "human rights abuses". see what you get and then ask yourself why the left is not howling about the Slavery, mass murders, and human rights abuses in Sudan? Then do it for Nigeria. Then do it for Saudi Arabia. etc.

I'm sorry, but a checkpoint to stop murderers from coming into Israel to kill is reasonable.

As for "systematic destruction of Palestinian statehood" don't blame Israel. Hamas is opposed to a Palestinian state. Arafat rejected one soundly in 2000. Oslo was supposed to bring about one five years ago but Palestinian violence against Israelis was supposed to have been checked by the armed Palestinian Authority created in 1994. Instead, the attacks on Israel dramatically INCREASED!

In other words, don't blame Israel for the lack of a Palestinian state. Blame Hamas, Al aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Islamic Jihad, and Arafat. Sharon agreed to Bush's "road map" too which provides for a Palestinian State.

I am personally against a Palestinian state because I do not believe it will bring peace to the region.

As a Jew (which I am not) you ought to be more respectful of the blood and sweat and determination that built the modern State of Israel--surrounded by enemies as she is---and right after the devastation of the Nazi holocaust. It is a homeland for the Jewish people who have suffered in exile for 2000 years. Your words actually serve to destroy Israel. What could possibly be your motive?

And your ridiculous theory that the Mossad is pretending to be Arab terrorists and fomenting attacks against Israel shows what straws you are clutching to in order to support your position.

THis whole exchange is just sad.....

I wish there was an easy solution but as Arundhati Roy put it, "The Isreal/Palestine and Kashmir conflicts are imperialism's festering gifts to the modern world." or something like that.
People must understand, and this is NOT ANTI-SEMETIC, that a brutal, racist, colonial power chose to ignore a long and complex history of several peoples and just deemed the land to now be Isreal. Ahrundhati Roy's article "Come September" says this much better than I ever could and I dare anyone to argue with this woman's logic, which is as far as I'm concerned, is impecable.

And please, read the whole thing before you dismiss her points. I find the whole thing just amazing but the ending is particularlly powerful.

Stop the racism, stop the objectification and villification of entire peoples. Niether side of the leaderships at this point have clean hands. But the basic people on each side are still worth listening to empowering, cause these leaders obviously don't get it....

Anti-semiticism means Jew-bashing

Response to Un Sandanista: First, I don't find this exchange to be "sad". It seems to me to be a vigorous debate over a hot-button issue and is healthy in a democracy. You learn more from people you disagree with than those you agree with. What you are sad about, it that we are not all united in our villification of the Israelis.

Please read the history of 1947-48. When the British partitioned the Palestine Mandate, they divided Palestine into an Arab Country (Jordan) and a Jewish country (Israel). Then, in 1947 they divided Israel AGAIN into an Arab State (Palestine) and a Jewish state (Israel). The Arabs rejected the State of Palestine and instead declared war on the Israelis.

From this history you conclude "that a brutal, racist, colonial power chose to ignore a long and complex history of several peoples and just deemed the land to now be (sic) Isreal." That "colonial power" at the time was the United Nations. Unless your conclusion is that the Jewish people don't deserve a state at all in the mideast, you are babbling nonsense. And since that nonsense villifies the Jewish State of Israel, then you are just another anti-semite.

Note to everyone: Why don't you post your real names? Dont you think you are acting cowardly? If your opinions and ideas can stand the light of day, why not post your real name and e-mail address.

Re: Oasis Of Peace / Israel

Resolution 242 (1967)
of 22 November 1967

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
Adopted unanimously at the 1382nd meeting.

Re: Oasis Of Peace / Israel

Hmmm..Don't see anything in that resolution saying that Israel has the legal authority to occupy the lands that they seized by force in 1967. In fact it calls for, "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict".

Re: Oasis Of Peace / Israel

UN Security Council resolution violators

United Nations Security Council resolutions currently being violated by countries other than Iraq
Foreign Policy in Focus, 28 February 2003

The cases are listed in order of resolution number, followed by the year in which the resolution was passed, the country or countries in violation, and a brief description of the resolution.

Resolution 252 (1968) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures that change the legal status of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon.

262 (1968) Israel
Calls upon Israel to pay compensation to Lebanon for destruction of airliners at Beirut International Airport.

267 (1969) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

271 (1969) Israel
Reiterates calls to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem and calls on Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers.

298 (1971) Israel
Reiterates demand that Israel rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

353 (1974) Turkey
Calls on nations to respect the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Cyprus and for the withdrawal without delay of foreign troops from Cyprus.

354 (1974) Turkey
Reiterates provisions of UNSC resolution 353.

360 (1974) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus "without delay."

364 (1974) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

367 (1975) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

370 (1975) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

377 (1979) Morocco
Calls on countries to respect the right of self-determination for Western Sahara.

379 (1979) Morocco
Calls for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Western Sahara.

380 (1979) Morocco
Reiterates the need for compliance with previous resolutions.

391 (1976) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

401 (1976) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

414 (1977) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

422 (1977) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

440 (1978) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

446 (1979) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers, to rescind previous measures that violate these relevant provisions, and "in particular, not to transport parts of its civilian population into the occupied Arab territories."

452 (1979) Israel
Calls on the government of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction, and planning of settlements in the Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

465 (1980) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions on Israel's settlements policy.

471 (1980) Israel
Demands prosecution of those involved in assassination attempts of West Bank leaders and compensation for damages; reiterates demands to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention.

484 (1980) Israel
Reiterates request that Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

487 (1981) Israel
Calls upon Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency.

497 (1981) Israel
Demands that Israel rescind its decision to impose its domestic laws in the occupied Syrian Golan region.

541 (1983) Turkey
Reiterates the need for compliance with prior resolutions and demands that the declaration of an independent Turkish Cypriot state be withdrawn.

550 (1984) Turkey
Reiterates UNSC resolution 541 and insists that member states may "not to facilitate or in any way assist" the secessionist entity.

573 (1985) Israel
Calls on Israel to pay compensation for human and material losses from its attack against Tunisia and to refrain from all such attacks or threats of attacks against other nations.

592 (1986) Israel
Insists Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.

605 (1987) Israel
"Calls once more upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War, and to desist forthwith from its policies and practices that are in violations of the provisions of the Convention."

607 (1986) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.

608 (1988) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.

636 (1989) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.

641 (1989) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions calling on Israel to desist in its deportations.

658 (1990) Morocco
Calls upon Morocco to "cooperate fully" with the Secretary General of the United Nations and the chairman of the Organization of African Unity "in their efforts aimed at an early settlement of the question of Western Sahara."

672 (1990) Israel
Reiterates calls for Israel to abide by provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

673 (1990) Israel
Insists that Israel come into compliance with resolution 672.

681 (1990) Israel
Reiterates call on Israel to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

690 (1991) Morocco
Calls upon both parties to cooperate fully with the Secretary General in implementing a referendum on the fate of the territory.

694 (1991) Israel
Reiterates that Israel "must refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported."

716 (1991) Turkey
Reaffirms previous resolutions on Cyprus.

725 (1991) Morocco
"Calls upon the two parties to cooperate fully in the settlement plan."

726 (1992) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.

799 (1992) Israel
"Reaffirms applicability of Fourth Geneva Convention…to all Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention."

809 (1992) Morocco
Reiterates call to cooperate with the peace settlement plan, particularly regarding voter eligibility for referendum.

822 (1993) Armenia
Calls for Armenia to implement the "immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kelbadjar district and other recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan."

853 (1993) Armenia
Demands "complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces" from Azerbaijani territory.

874 (1993) Armenia
Reiterates calls for withdrawal of occupation forces.

884 (1993) Armenia
Calls on Armenia to use its influence to force compliance by Armenian militias to previous resolutions and to withdraw its remaining occupation forces.

904 (1994) Israel
Calls upon Israel, as the occupying power, "to take and implement measures, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by settlers."

973 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates the need for cooperation with United Nations and expediting referendum on the fate of Western Sahara.

995 (1995) Morocco
Calls for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts to move forward with a referendum.

1002 (1995) Morocco
Reiteration of call for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts.

1009 (1995) Croatia
Demands that Croatia "respect fully the rights of the local Serb population to remain, leave, or return in safety."

1017 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates the call for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts and to cease "procrastinating actions which could further delay the referendum."

1033 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates call for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts.

1044 (1996) Sudan
Calls upon Sudan to extradite to Ethiopia for prosecution three suspects in an assassination attempt of visiting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and to cease its support for sanctuary and offering of sanctuary to terrorists.

1054 (1996) Sudan
Demands that Sudan come into compliance with UNSC resolution 1044.

1056 (1996) Morocco
Calls for the release of political prisoners from occupied Western Sahara.

1070 (1996) Sudan
Reiterates demands to comply with 1044 and 1054.

1073 (1996) Israel
"Calls on the safety and security of Palestinian civilians to be ensured."

1079 (1996) Croatia
Reaffirms right of return for Serbian refugees to Croatia.

1092 (1996) Turkey/Cyprus
Calls for a reduction of foreign troops in Cyprus as the first step toward a total withdrawal troops as well as a reduction in military spending.

1117 (1997) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a reduction of foreign troops in Cyprus as the first step toward a total withdrawal troops and reduction in military spending.

1120 (1997) Croatia
Reaffirms right of return for Serbian refugees to Croatia and calls on Croatia to change certain policies that obstruct this right, and to treat its citizens equally regardless of ethnic origin.

1145 (1997) Croatia
Reiterates Croatian responsibility in supporting the political and economic rights of its people regardless of ethnic origin.

1172 (1998) India, Pakistan
Calls upon India and Pakistan to cease their development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

1178 (1998) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.

1185 (1998) Morocco
Calls for the lifting of restrictions of movement by aircraft of UN peacekeeping force.

1215 (1998) Morocco
Urges Morocco to promptly sign a "status of forces agreement."

1217 (1998) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.

1251 (1999) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.

1264 (1999) Indonesia
Calls on Indonesia to provide safe return for refugees and punish those for acts of violence during and after the referendum campaign.

1272 (1999) Indonesia
Stresses the need for Indonesia to provide for the safe return for refugees and maintain the civilian and humanitarian character of refugee camps.

1283 (1999) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251.

1303 (2000) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolutions 1283 and 1251.

1319 (2000) Indonesia
Insists that Indonesia "take immediate additional steps, in fulfillment of its responsibilities, to disarm and disband the militia immediately, restore law and order in the affected areas of West Timor, ensure safety and security in the refugee camps and for humanitarian workers, and prevent incursions into East Timor." Stresses that those guilty of attacks on international personnel be brought to justice and reiterates the need to provide safe return for refugees who wish to repatriate and provide resettlement for those wishing to stay in Indonesia.

1322 (2000) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying power.

1331 (2000) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251 and subsequent resolutions.

1338 (2001) Indonesia
Calls for Indonesian cooperation with the UN and other international agencies in the fulfillment of UNSC resolution 1319.

1359 (2001) Morocco
Calls on the parties to "abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law to release without further delay all those held since the start of the conflict."

1384 (2001) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates 1251 and all relevant resolutions on Cyprus.

1402 (2002) Israel
Calls for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian cities.

1403 (2002) Israel
Demands that Israel go through with "the implementation of its resolution 1402, without delay."

1405 (2002) Israel
Calls for UN inspectors to investigate civilian deaths during an Israeli assault on the Jenin refugee camp.

1416 (2002) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251 and all relevant resolutions on Cyprus.

1435 (2002) Israel
Calls on Israel to withdraw to positions of September 2000 and end its military activities in and around Ramallah, including the destruction of security and civilian infrastructure.

Explanatory Notes:

This list deals exclusively with resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, a fifteen-member body consisting of five permanent members (the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom) and ten non-permanent members elected for rotating two-year terms representing various regions of the world. The Security Council's primary responsibility, under the UN Charter, is for the maintenance of international peace and security. For a resolution to pass, it must be approved by a majority of the total membership with no dissenting vote from any of the five permanent members. Since the early 1970s, the United States has used its veto power nearly fifty times, more than all other permanent members during that same period combined. In the vast majority of these cases, the U.S. was the only dissenting vote. The preceding list, therefore, includes only resolutions where the United States voted in the affirmative or abstained.

This list does not include resolutions that merely condemn a particular action, only those that specifically proscribe a particular ongoing activity or future activity and/or call upon a particular government to implement a particular action. Nor does this list does include resolutions where the language is ambiguous enough to make assertions of noncompliance debatable, such as UNSC resolutions 242 and 338 on the Arab-Israeli conflict that put forward the formula of "land for peace," to cite the most famous. Similarly, it does not include broad resolutions calling for universal compliance not in reference to a particular conflict, particularly if there is not a clear definition. For example, in a resolution that proscribes the harboring of terrorists, there is no clear definition for what constitutes a terrorist. This list does not include nonstate actors, such as secessionist governments, rebel groups or terrorists, only recognized nation-states.

Furthermore, this list does not include resolutions that were also violated for a number of years that are now moot (such as those dealing with Indonesia's occupation of East Timor, South Africa's occupation of Namibia, and Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon). If these were also included, the number of violations would double. In most of these cases, the United States played a key role in blocking enforcement of these resolutions as well.

Finally, it should be noted that this is only a partial list, since some of the resolutions involved technical questions I was unable to judge, particularly when they involved parts of the world with which we were less familiar. S.Z.

Re: Oasis Of Peace / Israel

Under international law a country that has seized territory by military force and occupies that land, is not permitted to move parts of it's own civilian population into that territory.
Israel attacked it's neighbors in 1967 and seized the West Bank and Gaza by military force. The Israeli government has since, illegally moved many thousands of Israelis into settlements in those territories that it rules by military force. The vast majority of those living in the West Bank and Gaza are Palestinians, despite this, they cannot vote for those who control almost every aspect of their existence, the Israeli military and government. The reason that there is no Palestinian State is because Israeli leaders ignore international law and appear willing to sacrifice endless numbers of Palestinians and their own citizens in a conquest of land. The U.S. government doesn't help as they give millions of dollars per day to Israel with virtually no strings attached and repeatedly veto United Nations Security Council resolutions which criticize illegal actions by the government of Israel.
In violation of international law, Israel has militarily seized and occupies territory, has moved parts of it's civilian population into these territories, extrajudicially executed Palestinians without trial, systematically abused Palestinians human rights in territory occupied and controlled by Israel....All this while as the occupiers, under international law, Israel is obligated to protect the civilian population living under their military rule.

Re: Oasis Of Peace / Israel

Between 1993 and 2000, terrorist attacks against Israel fell sharply. And yet, during that same period, the number of settlements doubled and settlement construction went on uninterrupted, with more land confiscation. For Palestinians, Peace Process = Land Confiscation

Re: Oasis Of Peace / Israel

Since the establishment of Israel there have been five major wars between Arabs and the Israelis. These wars occured in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982. Israel claims that the Arabs started all the wars. Although there has been low-intensity conflict in the intervening years and major conflagrations during the "War of Attrition" in 1969-1970 and the 1978 invasion of Lebanon, massive civil disobedience during the Uprising of 1988, and in 2000-2001 during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, it is these five wars Israel refers to when it makes its claims, creating the impression that Israel has only acted "in self-defence".

The 1948 War


The roots of the 1948 war go as far back as the first

recognition on the part of the Palestinians that the Zionists wished to establish a Jewish state on their land. In late 1947 the United Nations proposed that Palestine be divided into a Palestinian Arab state and a Jewish state. The UN Partition Plan recommended that 55 percent of Palestine, and the most fertile region, be given to the Jewish settlers who compromised 30 percent of the population. The remaining 45 percent of Palestine was to comprise a home for the other 70 percent of the population who were Palestinians. The Palestinians rejected the plan because it was unfair. Israel and its supporters claim that the Arabs first attacked in Janurary 1948 and then invaded Israel in May 1948.


The truth is that by May 1948 Zionist forces had already invaded and occupied large parts of the land which had been allocated to the Palestinians by the UN Partition Plan. In January 1948 Israel did not yet exist.

The evidence that Israel started the 1948 war comes from

Zionist sources. The History of the Palmach which was

released in portions in the 1950s (and in full in 1972)

details the efforts made to attack the Palestinian Arabs and secure more territory than alloted to the Jewish state by the UN Partition Plan (Kibbutz Menchad Archive, Palmach Archive, Efal, Israel). Already, Zionist forces were implementing their "Plan Dalet" to "control the area given to us [the Zionists] by the U.N. in addition to areas occupied by Arabs which were outside these borders and the setting up of forces to counter the possible invasion of Arab armies after May 15" (Qurvot 1948, p. 16, which covers the operations of Haganah and Palmach, see also Ha Sepher Ha Palmach, The Book of Palmach).

1. Operation Nachson, 1 April 1948

2. Operation Harel, 15 April 1948

3. Operation Misparayim, 21 April 1948

4. Operation Chametz, 27 April 1948

5. Operation Jevuss, 27 April 1948

6. Operation Yiftach, 28 April 1948

7. Operation Matateh, 3 May 1948

8. Operation Maccabi, 7 May 1948

9. Operation Gideon, 11 May 1948

10. Operation Barak, 12 May 1948

11. Operation Ben Ami, 14 May 1948

12. Operation Pitchfork, 14 May 1948

13. Operation Schfifon, 14 May 1948

The operations 1-8 indicate operations carried out before the entry of the Arab forces inside the areas allotted by the UN to the Arab state. It has to be noted that of thirteen specific full-scale operations under Plan Dalet eight were carried out outside the area "given" by the UN to the Zionists.

Following is a list drawn from the New York Times of the

major military operations the Zionists mounted before the

British evacuated Palestine and before the Arab forces

entered Palestine:

* Qazaza (21 Dec. 1947)

* Sa'sa (16 Feb. 1948)

* Haifa (21 Feb. 1948)

* Salameh (1 March 1948)

* Biyar Adas (6 March 1948)

* Qana (13 March 1948)

* Qastal (4 April 1948)

* Deir Yassin (9 April 1948)

* Lajjun (15 April 1948)

* Saris (17 April 1948)

* Tiberias (20 April 1948)

* Haifa (22 April 1948)

* Jerusalem (25 April 1948)

* Jaffa (26 April 1948)

* Acre (27 April 1948)

* Jerusalem (1 May 1948)

* Safad (7 May 1948)

* Beisan (9 May 1948).

David Ben-Gurion confirms this in an address delivered to American Zionists in Jerusalem on 3 September 1950:

"Until the British left, no Jewish settlement, however remote, was entered or seized by the Arabs, while the Haganah, under severe and frequent attack, captured many Arab positions and liberated Tiberias and Haifa, Jaffa and Safad" (Ben-Gurion, Rebirth and Destiny of Israel (N.Y.: Philosophical Library, 1954, p. 530).

Although late PM Ben-Gurion speaks of "liberating" Jaffa it

was alloted to the Palestinians by the UN Partition Plan.

Late PM Menachem Begin adds: "In the months preceding the Arab invasion, and while the five Arab states were conducting preparations, we continued to make sallies into

Arab territory. The conquest of Jaffa stands out as an event of first-rate importance in the struggle for Hebrew independence early in May, on the eve [that is, before the alleged Arab invasion] of the invasion by the five Arab states" (Menachem Begin, The Revolt, Nash, 1972, p. 348)

On 12 December 1948 David Ben Gurion confirmed the fact that the Zionists started the war in 1948: "As April began, our War of Independence swung decisively from defense to attack. Operation 'Nachson'...was launched with the capture of Arab Hulda near where we stand today and of Deir Muheisin and culminated in the storming of Qastel, the great hill fortress near Jerusalem" (Ben Gurion, Rebirth and Destiny of Israel (N.Y.: Philosophical Library, 1954, p. 106).

Israeli historians have themselves refuted the claim that the Arabs started the 1948 war. Benny Morris uncovered a report from the Israeli Defense Force Intelligence Branch (30 June 1948) that shows a deliberate Israeli policy to attack the Arabs should they resist and expel the Palestinians (Benny Morris, "The Causes and Character of the Arab Exodus from Palestine: the Israel Defense Forces Intelligence Branch Analysis of June 1948", Middle Eastern Studies, XXII, January 1986, pp. 5-19).


In sum, it is not true that the Arabs "invaded Israel" in

1948. First, Israel did not exist at the time of the alleged invasion as an established state with recognised bounderies. When the Zionist leaders established Israel on 15 May 1948 they purposely declined to declare the bounderies of the new state in order to allow for future expansion.

Secondly, the only territory to which the new state of Israel had even a remote claim was that alloted to the Jewish state by the UN Partition Plan. But the Zionists had already attacked areas that were alloted to the Palestinian Arab state.

Thirdly, those areas which the Arab states purportedly

"invaded" were, in fact, exclusively areas alloted to the

Palestinian Arab state proposed by the UN Partition Plan. The so-called Arab invasion was a defensive attempt to hold on to the areas alloted by the Partition Plan for the Palestinian state.

Finally, the commander of Jordan's Arab Legion, was under

orders not to enter the areas alloted to the Jewish state

(Sir John Bagot Glubb, "The Battle for Jerusalem", Middle

East International, May 1973).

The 1956 War


Israel blames the 1956 Sinai war on Egypt's aggressive behavior, including the closing of the Suez Canal.


The facts concerning the Sinai war come from Israeli sources.

A decisive and authoritative contribution exploding the myth of Israel's accusations are the relevations from former Prime Minister Moshe Sharett's Personal Diary (Moshe Sharett, Yoman Ishi, Ma'ariv, 1979, in Hebrew with portions trans. in Livia Rokach, Israel's Sacred Terrorism: A Study Based on Moshe Sharett's Personal Diary and Other Documents, AAUG, 1980).

The main reason often given for the origin of the 1956 war

was Egypt's closing of the Suez Canal. Moshe Sharett reveals that the Israeli leadership was planning the territorial conquest of the Sinai and Gaza as early as the fall of 1953. The Israeli attack on Gaza in February 1955 was undertaken as a conscious preliminary act of war. David Ben-Gurion became Prime Minister and Israel soon became very aggressive. On 28 February 1955 Israeli troops invaded Gaza killing 37 Egyptians and wounding 31. The attack came out of the blue. Egyptian President Gamal Nasser said it "was revenge for nothing. Everything was quiet there" (Kennett Love, Suez: the Twice Fought War, McGraw-Hill, 1969, p. 83). The Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation, Swedish General Carl von Horn, confirmed Nasser's claim, asserting that there had been "comparative tranquility along the armistice

demarcation lines during the greater part of the period November 1954 to February 1955" (Report to the Security Council, UN Doc. S3373, 17 March 1955).

In the 1950s few people believed that Nasser had aggressive

intentions towards Israel. Richard Grossman, a British

Zionist, wrote in 1955 that: "not only Egypt, but the whole Middle East must pray that Nasser survives the assassin's bullet. I am certain that he is a man who means what he says, and that so long as he is in power directing his

middle-class revolution, Egypt will remain a factor

for peace and social development" (Richard Grossman, New Statesman and Nation, 22 January 1955).

The Gaza raid changed everything. Arab public opinion was

outraged and demanded action, as it was intended to. Nasser

needed arms to equip his army which was hopelessly outgunned by Israel. Western Intelligence was convinced that Egypt had no intention of attacking Israel. The Americans rebuffed Nasser in any case and Egypt turned to the Russians who orchestrated the famous Czech arms deal which was used by Israel for feigned outrage. The Russians had also used the Czechs to supply arms to Israel in 1948.

Nasser did not realise that he was being set up for the

Israeli invasion, although he did recognise that the

situation was heating up. In October 1955, a year before the war, Israeli PM David Ben-Gurion ordered his Chief of Staff, General Moshe Dayan, to prepare invasion plans. Ben Gurion was determined, according to Dayan, "not to miss any politically favorable opportunity to strike at Egypt" (Moshe Dayan, Diary of the Sinai Campaign, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1966, p. 37).

Dayan expressed the hopes of the Israeli leadership when he

said in December 1955: "One of these days a situation will be created which makes military action possible" (Kennet Love, Suez: The Twice Fought War, McGraw-Hill, 1969, p.


The opportunity to make war against Egypt came in July 1956

when Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal, an act within the

legal right of the Egyptian state. The Suez Canal was

controlled by foreigners in 1956 and represented an important vestige of colonialism affronting the Arab people. Nasser's action was popular although, in hindsight, politically cataclysmic. France and Britain, in one of the last spasms of European colonialism, colluded in a secret alliance with Israel to invade the Sinai and destroy Nasser. On 29 October 1956 Israel attacked Egypt and occupied the entire Sinai. French war equipment poured into Israel and French and British warships bombarded the Egyptian coast.

French and British troops landed and helped the Israeli armed forces. Eisenhower, who had been in the dark about the invasion plans and the secret alliance, demanded that Israeli forces withdraw from Egyptian territory. Israel refused, leading Eisenhower to exclaim: "Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of U.N. disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its own withdrawal? If we agree that armed attack can properly achieve the purpose of the assailant, then I fear we will

have turned back the clock of international order..." (Address to the nation, 20 February 1957).

The 1967 war


Israel claims that its attack against Egypt in June 1967 was a defensive measure to prevent Gamal Abdel Nasser from



Israel began planning the re-conquest of the Sinai soon after its forced withdrawal in 1956. In 1967, as in 1956, Israel waited for favorable circumstances to put its plan into action.

In 1967, however, Israel had a greater appreciation of the

necessity and utility of a sophisticated publicity campaign, waged through the international media, to convince Western opinion that any Israeli military actions could only be construed as acts of self-defense. This publicity campaign was two-pronged: stressing that the Arabs attacked Israel and that Israel was in danger of annihilation. Both presuppositions were patently false.

In the early hours of 5 June 1967, Israel announced to a

credulous Western world that the Egyptian Air Force had

initiated hostile actions. In fact, it was the Israelis who

had attacked the Egyptians and destroyed virtually the entire Egyptian Air Force while its fleet was still on the ground.

General Matityahu Peled, one of the architects of the Israeli conquest, committed what the Israeli public considered blasphemy when he admitted the true thinking of the Israeli leadership: "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war" (Ha'aretz, 19

March 1972). Israeli Air Force General Ezer Weizmann declared bluntly that "there was never any danger of extermination" (Ma'ariv, 19 April 1972). Mordechai Bentov, a former Israeli cabinet minister, also dismissed the myth of Israel's imminent annihilation: "All this story about the danger of extermination has been a complete invention and has been blown up a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territories" (Al Hamishmar, 14 April 1972).

After the 1967 war Israel, claimed it invaded because of

imminent Arab attack. It claimed that Nasser's closing of the Straits of Tiran constituted an act of war. It also cited Syrian shelling on the demilitarized zone of the Syrian-Israeli border. The claim that the Arabs were going to invade appears particularly ludicrous when one recalls that a third of Egypt's army was in Yemen and therefore quite unprepared to launch a war. On the Syrian front, Israel was engaging in threats and provocations that evidenced many similarities to its behavior in the lead up to the Gaza raid of 1955.

The demilitarized zone on the Syrian-Israeli border was established by agreement on 20 July 1949. Israeli provocations were incessant and enabled Israel to increase and extend its sovereignty by encroachment over the entire Arab area. According to one UN Chief of Staff, Arab villagers were evicted and their homes destroyed (E.L.M. Burns, Between Arab and Israeli, Ivan Obolensky, 1962, pp. 113-114).

Another Chief of Staff described how the Israelis ploughed up Arab land and "advanced the 'frontier' to their own advantage" (Carl von Horn, Soldiering for Peace, Cassell, 1966, p. 79). Israel attempted to evict the Arabs living on the Golan and annex the demilitarized zone. When the Syrians inevitably responded, Israel claimed that "peaceful" Israeli farmers were being shelled by the Syrians. Unmentioned was the fact that the "farmers" were armed and using tractors and farm equipment to encroach on the demilitarized zone (David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch: the Roots of Violence in the Middle East, Faber and Faber, 1984, pp. 213-15). This was part of a "premeditated Israeli policy [..] to get all the Arabs out of the way by fair means or foul."

Shortly after the Syrian response on 7 April 1967, the

Israeli Air Force attacked Syria, shooting down six planes,

hitting thirty fortified positions and killing about 100

people (Hirst, op. cit., p. 214). It was unlikely that any

Syrian guns would have been fired if not for Israel's

provocation. Israel's need for water also played a role in the 1967 attack. The invasion completed Israel's encirclement of the headwaters of the Upper Jordan River, its capture of the West Bank and the two aquifers arising there, which currently supply all the groundwater for northern and central Israel.

The Israelis followed-up their massive retaliation with stern warnings. On 11 May 1967, General Yitzhak Rabin said on Israeli radio: "The moment is coming when we will march on Damascus to overthrow the Syrian Government" (Godfrey Jansen, "New Light on the 1967 War", Daily Star, London, 15, 22, 26 November 1973). Syria sought Egypt's assistance under their Mutual Defense Pact of November 1966. Nasser could not afford to stand idly by. He ordered the removal of the small UN force stationed in Sinai and closed the Straits of Tiran. This action provided the casus belli that Israel soon invoked.

Nasser's move was a gesture of solidarity with Syria and no

threat to Israel's economy or its security. The closure of

the Straits did not force Israel into war. Claims of economic strangulation were absurd since only 5 percent of Israel's trade depended on free movement through the Straits of Tiran. No Israeli merchant vessel had passed through the Straits during the previous two years (Michael Howard and Robert Hunter, Israel and the Arab World: the Crisis of 1967, Adelphi Papers 41, Institute for Strategic Studies, 1967, p. 24).

In sum, the threat to Israel's survival in 1967 was non-

existent. According to the British newspaper The Observer,

Nasser's purpose was clearly "to deter Israel rather than

provoke it to a fight" (The Observer, London, 4 June 1967).

New York Times columnist James Reston reported that "Egypt

does not war [...] certainly is not ready for war" (New York Times, 4 and 5 June 1967).

The Israelis themselves were perfectly aware of this, given

their sophisticated military intelligence capabilities.

Later, in the first few days of the war, they were so

concerned that their plans for attacking Syria would be

discovered that they deliberately attacked the USS Liberty,

killing 33 American sailors, in an attempt to prevent it from monitoring war preparations.

A few months after the war, Yitzhak Rabin remarked: "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai on 14 May would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it" (Le Monde, 29 February 1968).

Israeli General Peled was even more frank: "To pretend that

the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a

position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an

insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of

analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to the Zahal [Israeli army]" (Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972).

Finally, in 1982, the Israelis admitted that they had started the war (although official Zionist propaganda in the United States still does not acknowledge this fact). Prime Minister Menachem Begin, in a speech delivered at the Israeli National Defense College, clearly stated that: "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" (Jerusalem Post, 20 August 1982).

The 1973 War


The 1973 war – the Yum Kipur war – holds a special place in Israeli mythology. Again, the myth is that Israel was attacked unprovoked, that its existence was again at stake, and that Israelis were at the periloud risk of annihilation.


After coming to power in late 1970, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat indicated to the United States that he was willing to negotiate with Israel to resolve the conflict in exchange for Egyptian territory lost in 1967. In February 1971 he offered a full peace treaty to Israel, which it rejected, although international consensus supported the Sadat offer which conformed to the US position (John Kimche, There Could Have Been Peace, Dial, 1973, p. 286).

When these overtures were ignored by Washington and Tel Aviv, Egypt and Syria launched an coordinated action in October 1973 against Israeli forces occupying the Egyptian Sinai and Syrian Golan Heights. The devastating defeat of 1967 left Israel in control of the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights and the Sinai. Israel rapidly moved to incorporate these occupied territories into

its domain. Israel illegally annexed Jerusalem and began

establishing colonial settlements in all the occupied


It was clear that the Arab World could not go on indefinitely watching Israel expel Egyptians, Syrians and Palestinians while installing Jewish settlers in their thousands. By 1973 nearly 100 settlements had been established and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians had been displaced, expelled, imprisoned or deported.

On 6 October 1973 the Egyptian and Syrian armies attacked

Israeli positions in the Sinai and on the Golan Heights in an attempt to liberate their territory occupied by Israel. The Secretary-General of the Arab League explained the Arab

action: "In a final analysis, Arab action is justifiable,

moral and valid under Article 51 of the Charter of

the United Nations. There is no aggression, no attempt to acquire new territories. But to restore and liberate all the occupied territories is a duty for all able self-respecting peoples" (Sunday Times, 14 October 1973).

The 1982 war


In 1982, Israel claimed that its military objective was to

attack, not Lebanon, but the Palestine Liberation

Organization (PLO) in Lebanon in order to 'safeguard the

Galilee region from enemy artillery and infiltration'.


The facts are that Israel invaded Lebanon on 6 June 1982 in

order to totally destroy the PLO, not only its insignificant military capability, but also all of its civilian functions.

The other basic war aim was described by Israeli Minister of Defense Ariel Sharon: "The bigger the blow and the more we damage the PLO infrastructure, the more the Arabs in Judea and Samaria, [the Biblical name for the West Bank used for obvious political reasons by Israel] and Gaza

will be ready to negotiate with us" -- The Times, 5 August 1982 -- Israel had hoped that, with the destruction of the PLO, Lebanon could be ripped from its Arab moorings in order to create an Israeli puppet regime of pro-Israeli Maronite Christian Lebanese, a minority of the population.

As early as 1954, David Ben-Gurion had urged that one of the "central duties" of Israel's foreign policy should be to push the Maronite Christians to "proclaim a Christian state". Moshe Dayan had said that: "[the] Israeli army will enter Lebanon, will occupy the neessary territory, and will create a Christian regime which will ally itself with Israel" -- Livia Rokach, Israel's Sacred Terrorism,

op.cit., pp. 24-30. Also see, Laura Zittrain Eisenberg: My Enemy's Enemy: Zionist Intentions in Lebanon.

The Israeli claim that it had invaded Lebanon "in self-

defense" is false.

Between August 1981 and May 1982 the PLO

maintained a truce, sponsored by the United States and Saudi Arabia, on Lebanon's southern border. Israel, on the other hand, violated the truce 2,777 times (United Nations records cited by Robin Wright in the Christian Science Monitor, 18 March 1982; Alexander Cockburn and James Ridgeway, Village Voice, 22 June 1982). [For the most thorough, as well as the most compelling treatment of Israel's invasion of Lebanon, see Robert Fisk, Pity the Nation] Once again Israel only needed an excuse to make war. This time the casus belli was the attempted assassination of the Israeli ambassador to London, an act determined by Scotland Yard to have been conducted by the PLO-dissent Abu Nidal group. In any case, Israel's excuse was so flimsy that, for the first time in the Arab-Israeli conflict, Israeli propaganda was not taken on board without question by the international community.

At first the Israelis operated under the pretense that they

were only securing their borders and stated that they did not intend to go beyond a 25 mile limit. But the truth was very different as described by the former chief of Israeli

military intelligence, Aharon Yariv: "I know in fact that going to Beirut was included in the original military plan"

-- Jerusalem Post, 24 September 1982. Israel's invasion of Lebanon has no validity in international law. Israel thus had no grounds to rely on the provision of the Charter of the United Nations concerning self-defense, while the means used to effect the invasion clearly lacked proportionality. The cease-fire of July 1981 had been observed scrupulously.

The objective of the 1982 invasion and war, therefore, was to achieve certain political and strategic aims at a high cost, which included breaches of some of the most fundamental rules of international law. As for the Israeli justification for the conduct of hostilities, the principle of military necessity cannot excuse the massive number of civilian casualties which resulted from Israeli attacks on refugee camps, hospitals, schools, cultural, religious and charitable institutions, commercial and industrial premises, Lebanese government and PLO offices, diplomatic premises and urban areas generally.

Particularly heinous was the August 8th bombardment of Beirut by the Israeli Air Force, which some correspondents compared to the WWII bombing of Dresden in its ferocity. Hundreds of innocent Beiruti civilians died as a result of this war crime. [See Thomas Friedman, From Beirut to Jerusalem; Robert Fisk, Pity the Nation; Jean Said Makdisi, Beirut Fragments; Chris Giannou, Besieged: A Doctor in Lebanon.]

Re: Oasis Of Peace / Israel

There are many hundreds of Palestinians working directly with Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza. They work with Israelis in groups such as Taayush, the International Solidarity Movement, the Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions, The Palestine Center for Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation, etc. They are not lynched, arrested or tried for working with Jews and Israelis.

I recently attended an event where I saw many photographs and heard testimonials from people who had worked directly with Israelis and Palestinians in joint nonviolent peace efforts. The only threat to the Israeli and the Palestinian activists was from the Israeli army, who frequently fired live ammunition at peaceful protests. Recently this resulted in an Israeli activist being shot in the eye. See the Israeli human rights organization Betselem for information on the behavior of Israeli soldiers and settlers in the West Bank and Gaza at There have also been incidents of Israeli settlers beating Israeli activists with rifle butts and hospitalizing them, all because they were trying to help Palestinian farmers harvest their olives. They were trying to offer a measure of protection to the farmers who were frequently shot at and beaten by settlers. There are extremists in the Israeli population, too.

There have been lynchings by some Palestinians of other Palestinians, because it was suspected that they were collaborating with the Israeli occupying army. That is wrong, but is quite different than the claim that anyone who works for peace with Israelis will be arrested or lynched. That is a ridiculous assertion, that I notice wasn't backed up with any facts.

See www.taayush,,,, to read about Israelis and Palestinians working together for peace in the West Bank and Gaza.

Re: Oasis Of Peace / Israel

The Wall is not a security measure, it is an attempt to annex close to half of the West Bank. Once it is completed it will leave almost half of the territory on Israel's side of the Wall. Furthermore, Palestinians who lose their homes, shops, farms and greenhouses are not compensated. This cannot be justified by "imminent domain" as Israel does not legally own that land. They control it by a military occupation under which Palestinians have virtually no rights. The loss of their homes and livelihoods is causing incredible deprivation and is part of the Sharon government's attempts to make life unbearable for Palestinians in the hopes that they will leave. Most checkpoints are inside Palestinian areas and between Palestinian cities and towns. They are understandable when they are at the border of Israel, but restricting the ability of Palestinians to pass between their own towns to go to work, school or the hospital is not. Besides, according to human rights workers and international observers these checkpoints are most often used as an exercise in humiliation and control. Forcing people to stand for hours or even days in blazing heat or very cold weather, only to then let everyone through without checking a single ID. Palestinian women have been forced to give birth at checkpoints and some have died. Ambulances are routinely delayed or refused passage for no reason, frequently resulting in deaths. There are many other abuses that have occurred at checkpoints, including extrajudicial executions of unarmed people and of Palestinians being forced to strip naked in order to humiliate them in cases where it was clear that they were unarmed. These checkpoints inside Palestinian towns and cities should not even exist. The Israeli government needs to do the only rational thing at this point and pull out all illegal settlements and troops from the West Bank and Gaza and permit U.N. Peacekeepers to come in, as the Palestinians have been asking for, for years.

Re: Oasis Of Peace / Israel

Thailand is building an APARTHEID WALL OF SHAME along the Malaysian border...much like the one the Israelis are building..
Same reason too! Moslems have a propensity towards the murder of innocents...the only way to stop them is to keep them out!
Hey, Saudi is quietly building an APARTHEID WALL of SHAME too along the Yemen border...same reason!!

Israel's Secret Prison. Who trained our troops in Torture?

Facility 1391: Israel's secret prison

It has been removed from maps and airbrushed from aerial photographs. But Facility 1391 certainly exists - you just have to ask the Palestinians and Lebanese who have been imprisoned and tortured there. Chris McGreal reports

Friday November 14, 2003
The Guardian

The men under the black hoods all have the same question once the blindfolds and manacles are off: Where am I? A voice filtering through a narrow slit in the steel door told Sameer Jadala he was "in Honolulu", Raab Bader that he was "in a submarine" and "outside the borders of Israel", Bashar Jadala that he was "on the moon". None of them imagined it at the time, because only a handful of the political and security establishment knew such a thing existed, but they were prisoners in Israel's Guantanamo: Facility 1391.
"I was barefoot in my pyjamas when they arrested me and it was really cold," says Sameer Jadala, a Palestinian school bus driver. "When I got to that place, they told me to strip and gave me a blue uniform. Then they gave me a black sack. They told me: 'This is your sack. You need to keep it with you. Any time someone comes to your cell, you must put it on your head. Any time they deliver the food, you must put it on your head. You must never see the soldiers' faces. You do not want to know what will happen if you take it off.' Sometimes I thought I would die in that place and no one would ever know."

Facility 1391 has been airbrushed from Israeli aerial photographs and purged from modern maps. Where once a police station was marked there is now a blank space. Sometimes even the road leading to it has been erased. But Israel's secret prison, inside an army intelligence base close to the main road between Hadera and Afula in northern Israel, is real enough. For 20 years or more it has been housed in a large, imposing, single-storey building designed by a British engineer, Sir Charles Taggart, during the 1930s as one of a series of garrison forts designed to contain growing unrest in Palestine. Today, the thick concrete walls and iron gates are themselves protected by a double fence overseen by watchtowers and patrolled by attack dogs.

The prison has held Lebanese abducted by the Israeli army as hostages, Iraqi defectors and a Syrian intelligence officer who tried to defect but was accused of spying and chose to remain in another prison rather than return home and face a firing squad. More recently, scores of Palestinians were incarcerated in 1391 for interrogation, which finally led to the almost accidental disclosure of a prison the state decreed did not exist.

Those who have been through its gates know it is no illusion. One former inmate has filed a lawsuit alleging that he was raped twice - once by a man and once with a stick - during questioning. But most of those who emerge say the real torture is the psychological impact of solitary confinement in filthy, blackened cells so poorly lit that inmates can barely see their own hands, and with no idea where they are or, in many cases, why they are there.

"Our main conclusion is that it exists to make torture possible - a particular kind of torture that creates progressive states of dread, dependency, debility," says Manal Hazzan, a human rights lawyer who helped expose the prison's existence. "The law gives the army enough authority already to hide prisoners, so why do they need a secret facility?"

Unlike any other Israeli prison, the International Red Cross, lawyers and members of the Israeli parliament have been refused access. One leftwing MP, Zahava Gal-On, describes Facility 1391 as "one of the signs of totalitarian regimes and of the third world". The Israeli government declines to discuss the secret prison other than to issue a standard response: "Facility 1391 is situated on a secret military base. The base is used by the security services for various classified activities and thus its location is kept confidential."

But it is not just human rights lawyers and leftwing MPs who have a problem. Ami Ayalon is a former head of Israel's intelligence service, the Shin Bet. He was told about 1391 but says he refused to have anything to do with it. "I knew there was a facility not under the responsibility of the Shin Bet, but under the responsibility of the military. I didn't think then, and I don't think today, that such an institution should exist in a democracy," he says.

Sameer Jadala was detained at his home in Nablus last year at 3 o'clock on a December morning. For three days, the 33-year-old Palestinian was moved from one prison cell to another. On the fourth day, he was blindfolded, handcuffed and his feet manacled. Blacked-out glasses were pushed over his eyes as he was forced into the back of a car and on to the floor. Then he was covered with a blanket.

Jadala estimates that he was driven for about an hour. "We were taken out one by one. The only reason I knew there were two other prisoners in the car was the sound of the chains," he says. "I was blindfolded right up to the time they took me to the cell. There was a small slit in the door. It was not even wide enough to push a cigarette through. A voice said, 'Take the blindfold off but any time I come you must put it on and put your hands on the wall.'"

Raab Bader, a 38-year-old accountant and father of two, was also in the cells, although the two men had no contact. He too had been detained in Nablus, though he was convinced he had nothing to hide. "I was held like a blind mole, except for the prolonged hours that an [intelligence] agent interrogated me," he says.

Bader was variously told that he was on a submarine, in space or outside the borders of Israel. He was pushed into a windowless cell, 6ft square. A fan high in the ceiling drives air into the cell, but inmates say the noise is deafening.

"The cell walls were painted black. I never saw the ceiling. When I looked up, I saw only darkness. Light no stronger than the power of a candle penetrated in a peculiar way from one side of the room," he said in an affidavit.

The bed was a thin, damp mattress on a concrete slab a few inches above the ground. The toilet was a bucket, emptied every few days. Water to the cell came out of a hole in the wall, controlled by the guard. "On the ninth consecu tive day in the stench-filled cell, one of the soldiers was supposed to come and take me out. He almost vomited and rushed out of the cell," Bader says. "I spent many days in that solitary confinement cell and in others like it, and hour after hour I would talk to myself and feel that I was going crazy, or find myself laughing to myself."

Jadala was still trying to work out why he had been arrested in the first place. "I asked the interrogator: why am I here? What do you want from me? When I asked where I was, they told me I was in Honolulu. I didn't ask again," he says.

It later dawned on Jadala that he was there because days earlier his brother, Mohammed, and a cousin, Basher, had been arrested while crossing into the West Bank from Jordan. Israel's intelligence service suspected that Mohammed was a member of Hamas. Sameer Jadala now believes he was detained as part of an elaborate psychological game to pressure his brother into talking. Mohammed Jadala, who is still a prisoner, has signed an affidavit alleging he was tortured into a confession. He says he was beaten during his initial interrogation at a regular prison and then moved to 1391. When he asked where he was, the reply was "on the moon".

"They kept me there in a solitary cell for about 67 days. During this period, they continued with the torture, but they used a different method. They did not let me sleep more than two hours a day. When I started to get drowsy, they woke me up by making noise or by throwing water on me. As a result of the torture, they were able to get me to admit to all kinds of offences," he says.

The interrogators brought the brothers together briefly, apparently as a means of letting Mohammed know that Sameer would pay the price if he didn't talk. "They took my brother and cousin to the secret facility and showed me them crying; the interrogators said that they would be tried because of me," Mohammed says.

Probably the first prisoners at Facility 1391 were Lebanese. The prison is part of a military camp that is home to an army intelligence group, Unit 504, which specialises in interrogation. The unit has a hard reputation, and some of its members have badly blemished records. One has been accused of murder, another of spying. Unit 504's glory days were during Israel's 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon, interrogating captured Hezbollah fighters and running an extensive network of collaborators, some of whom are still being put on trial for their lives by the Lebanese authorities.

In the late 80s, Unit 504 went in search of another kind of prisoner; men who could be held hostage and exchanged for captured Israeli soldiers and airmen. In 1989, the Israelis seized Sheikh Abd al-Karim Obeid, a spiritual leader to Hezbollah. Five years later, they snatched Mustafa Dirani, a leading Shi'ite fighter. Both were taken directly to Facility 1391.

The soldiers who grabbed Obeid also abducted his bodyguards, members of his family and Hashem Fahaf, a young man who happened to be visiting the sheikh to seek his blessing and who found himself locked up for the next 11 years, initially at 1391.

Fahaf was never accused of any crime, but he was refused access to a lawyer and any other contact with the outside world. For the first few years, the Israelis denied they were even holding him. In April 2000, the Israeli supreme court finally ordered Fahaf's release. The government said it had been holding him and another 18 Lebanese as hostages - or "bargaining chips", as Israeli officials prefer to call it - in the hope of winning the release of an airforce navigator, Colonel Ron Arad.

Mustafa Dirani, the primary target of the abductions, had been the head of security in the Shi'ite movement Amal, and held Arad for about two years, at times driving around with the Israeli colonel in the boot of his car. Dirani was questioned for five weeks around the clock. Freed from Facility 1391 eight years later but locked up in another Israeli prison, he filed a lawsuit in the Israeli courts alleging that he was sodomised by his Israeli interrogators. The legal action names a "Major George" who, Dirani alleges, ordered a soldier to rape him. On another occasion, the Lebanese prisoner accuses the major of thrusting a stick up his rectum. Other former prisoners at 1391 have described how they were stripped naked for interrogation, blindfolded and handcuffed, and a stick was pressed against their buttocks as they were threatened with rape.

In its response to the lawsuit, the Israeli government denied Dirani was raped but it confirmed that prisoners were routinely stripped naked for interrogation. However, the state attorney's office later went further and said that "within the framework of a military police investigation the suspicion arose that an interrogator who questioned the complainant threatened to perform a sexual act on the complainant".

"Major George" was sacked. Dozens of other interrogators signed a petition objecting to his punishment for using methods they said were sanctioned by the authorities.

Another Lebanese prisoner, Ahmed Ali Banjek, was convicted of smuggling a surface-to-air missile into the Israeli-controlled zone of southern Lebanon on the basis of a confession made at 1391. He later told a military court that it had been extracted under torture, including being forced to sit on a stick until it penetrated his anus. The court was persuaded that the confession was not reliable, and released Banjek.

Facility 1391 remained a secret for two decades or more because those delivered to its clutches could be made to disappear. But even amid the severity of occupation, Israel does recognise that Palestinians have rights. Last year, as the army rounded up thousands of Palestinians during the reoccupation of West Bank cities, it ran out of places to interrogate them. Some were delivered to 1391.

A Jerusalem human rights organisation, the Centre for the Defence of the Individual (Hamoked), went in search of one man, Muatez Shahin, who was taken from his home by the army a year ago. The military insisted he was not on any of their lists of prisoners. Hamoked petitioned the high court and, after various attempts by the state to block the truth, won an unprecedented admission earlier this year that Shahin had disappeared into the previously unknown prison. State prosecutors initially told the court that the prison was no longer in use. A few weeks later, the state was forced to confess otherwise.

"The circumstances have changed, and the security people have informed us that detainees are currently being held at Facility 1391," prosecutors told the court.

Hamoked's director, Dalia Kerstein, an Israeli, was horrified. "I was shocked to find out there is such a facility. I don't want the country I live in to have such a secret prison," she said. "We're challenging the legality of this place. We're seeking to close it and we're challenging the whole system of interrogation that goes on in the facility and is a byproduct of the fact that this place is secret, including torture.

"The psychological torture is very intense. People have been there for months at a time. I've met five people from different cities across the West Bank, from different organisations, and they all describe the same methods of torture. They're not beating people but there is very strong psychological torture that results in people hallucinating or having breakdowns."

Sameer Jadala was close to breakdown as he was dragged through interrogation after interrogation that seemed to lead nowhere as his inquisitors tried to get him to implicate his brother or to confess to being a member of Hamas. Then his inquisitors offered him the chance to win his freedom with a lie-detector test.

"I said I know beyond doubt that there is nothing on me. I took the test. At the end, they said 'Congratulations, Sameer' and I never saw them again," he says. "During the night I was visited by soldiers. I was blindfolded and had chains on my hands and legs. They put me into the car, covered me in a blanket and I was driven to a court near Jenin.

"First I had to see a doctor, who asked me where I had been. I said: 'I don't know, I really don't know.' The doctor asked the soldier where I had been. The soldier waved his hand in the air as though he were pointing to a distant planet. The doctor stopped asking questions."

Eventually, Jadala was dragged before a judge, who also wanted to know where he had been held. The prosecutor said he didn't know. "The judge wanted to know if I had a lawyer. I asked how I could appoint a lawyer when I didn't even know where I was. There was no way to contact anybody outside," he says.

It wasn't the end of the ordeal. Government lawyers repeatedly asked the military courts to extend his detention on "security grounds" - by a week or two at a time - but never said what it was he was suspected of.

"During one hearing I burst into tears. The judge asked me why I was crying. I said that for 30 days I didn't know where I was, I had no contact with a lawyer, I was transported in a brutal way. The judge finally said they had to come up with some evidence against me or let me go. So they let me go."

The Israeli Torture Template.THIS IS SHOCKING

The Israeli Torture Template
Rape, Feces and Urine-Dipped Cloth Sacks

With mounting evidence that a shadowy group of former Israeli Defense Force and General Security Service (Shin Bet) Arabic-speaking interrogators were hired by the Pentagon under a classified "carve out" sub-contract to brutally interrogate Iraqi prisoners at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, one only needs to examine the record of abuse of Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners in Israel to understand what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld meant, when referring to new, yet to be released photos and videos, he said, "if these images are released to the public, obviously its going to make matters worse."

According to a political appointee within the Bush administration and U.S. intelligence sources, the interrogators at Abu Ghraib included a number of Arabic-speaking Israelis who also helped U.S. interrogators develop the "R2I" (Resistance to Interrogation) techniques. Many of the torture methods were developed by the Israelis over many years of interrogating Arab prisoners on the occupied West Bank and in Israel itself.

Clues about worse photos and videos of abuse may be found in Israeli files about similar abuse of Palestinian and other Arab prisoners. In March 2000, a lawyer for a Lebanese prisoner kidnapped in 1994 by the Israelis in Lebanon claimed that his client had been subjected to torture, including rape. The type of compensation offered by Rumsfeld in his testimony has its roots in cases of Israeli torture of Arabs. In the case of the Lebanese man, said to have been raped by his Israeli captors, his lawyer demanded compensation of $1.47 million. The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel documented the types of torture meted out on Arab prisoners. Many of the tactics coincide with those contained in the Taguba report: beatings and prolonged periods handcuffed to furniture. In an article in the December 1998 issue of The Progressive, Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb reported on the treatment given to a 23-year old Palestinian held on "administrative detention." The prisoner was "cuffed behind a chair 17 hours a day for 120 days . . . [he] had his head covered with a sack, which was often dipped in urine or feces. Guards played loud music right next to his ears and frequently taunted him with threats of physical and sexual violence." If additional photos and videos document such practices, the Bush administration and the American people have, indeed, "seen nothing yet."

Although it is still largely undocumented if any of the contractor named in the report of General Antonio Taguba were associated with the Israeli military or intelligence services, it is noteworthy that one, John Israel, who was identified in the report as being employed by both CACI International of Arlington, Virginia, and Titan, Inc., of San Diego, may not have even been a U.S. citizen. The Taguba report states that Israel did not have a security clearance, a requirement for employment as an interrogator for CACI. According to CACI's web site, "a Top Secret Clearance (TS) that is current and US citizenship" are required for CACI interrogators working in Iraq. In addition, CACI requires that its interrogators "have at least two years experience as a military policeman or similar type of law enforcement/intelligence agency whereby the individual utilized interviewing techniques."

Speculation that "John Israel" may be an intelligence cover name has fueled speculation whether this individual could have been one of a number of Israeli interrogators hired under a classified contract. Because U.S. citizenship and documentation thereof are requirements for a U.S. security clearance, Israeli citizens would not be permitted to hold a Top Secret clearance. However, dual U.S.-Israeli citizens could have satisfied Pentagon requirements that interrogators hold U.S. citizenship and a Top Secret clearance. Although the Taguba report refers twice to Israel as an employee of Titan, the company claims he is one of their sub-contractors. CACI stated that one of the men listed in the report "is not and never has been a CACI employee" without providing more detail. A U.S. intelligence source revealed that in the world of intelligence "carve out" subcontracts such confusion is often the case with "plausible deniability" being a foremost concern.

In fact, the Taguba report does reference the presence of non-U.S. and non-Iraqi interrogators at Abu Ghraib. The report states, "In general, US civilian contract personnel (Titan Corporation, CACI, etc), third country nationals, and local contractors do not appear to be properly supervised within the detention facility at Abu Ghraib."

The Pentagon is clearly concerned about the outing of the Taguba report and its references to CACI, Titan, and third country nationals, which could permanently damage U.S. relations with Arab and Islamic nations. The Pentagon's angst may explain why the Taguba report is classified Secret No Foreign Dissemination.

The leak of the Taguba report was so radioactive, Daniel R. Dunn, the Information Assurance Officer for Douglas Feith's Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Policy (Policy Automation Services Security Team), sent a May 6, 2004, For Official Use Only Urgent E-mail to Pentagon staffers stating, "THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT IS CLASSIFIED; DO NOT GO TO FOX NEWS TO READ OR OBTAIN A COPY." Considering Feith's close ties to the Israelis, such a reaction by his top computer security officer, a Certified Information System Security Professional (CISSP), is understandable, although considering the fact that CISSPs are to act on behalf of the public good, it is also regrettable..

The reference to "third country nationals" in a report that restricts its dissemination to U.S. coalition partners (Great Britain, Poland, Italy, etc.) is another indication of the possible involvement of Israelis in the interrogation of Iraqi prisoners. Knowledge that the U.S. may have been using Israeli interrogators could have severely fractured the Bush administration's tenuous "coalition of the willing' in Iraq. General Taguba's findings were transmitted to the Coalition Forces Land Component Command on March 9, 2004, just six days before the Spanish general election, one that the opposition anti-Iraq war Socialists won. The Spanish ultimately withdrew their forces from Iraq.

During his testimony before the Senate Armed Service Committee, Rumsfeld was pressed upon by Senator John McCain about the role of the private contractors in the interrogations and abuse. McCain asked Rumsfeld four pertinent questions, ". . . who was in charge? What agency or private contractor was in charge of the interrogations? Did they have authority over the guards? And what were the instructions that they gave to the guards?"

When Rumsfeld had problems answering McCain's question, Lt. Gen. Lance Smith, the Deputy Commander of the U.S. Central Command, said there were 37 contract interrogators used in Abu Ghraib. The two named contractors, CACI and Titan, have close ties to the Israeli military and technology communities. Last January 14, after Provost Marshal General of the Army, Major General Donald Ryder, had already uncovered abuse at Abu Ghraib, CACI's President and CEO, Dr. J.P. (Jack) London was receiving the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah's Albert Einstein Technology award at the Jerusalem City Hall, with right-wing Likud politician Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism party Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski in attendance. Oddly, CACI waited until February 2 to publicly announce the award in a press release. CACI has also received grants from U.S.-Israeli bi-national foundations.

Titan also has had close connections to Israeli interests. After his stint as CIA Director, James Woolsey served as a Titan director. Woolsey is an architect of America's Iraq policy and the chief proponent of and lobbyist for Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress. An adviser to the neo-conservative Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs, Project for the New American Century, Center for Security Policy, Freedom House, and Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, Woolsey is close to Stephen Cambone, the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, a key person in the chain of command who would have not only known about the torture tactics used by U.S. and Israeli interrogators in Iraq but who would have also approved them. Cambone was associated with the Project for the New American Century and is viewed as a member of Rumsfeld's neo-conservative "cabal" within the Pentagon.

Another person considered by Pentagon insiders to have been knowledgeable about the treatment of Iraqi prisoners is U.S. Army Col. Steven Bucci, a Green Beret and Rumsfeld's military assistant and chief traffic cop for the information flow to the Defense Secretary. According to Pentagon insiders, Bucci was involved in the direction of a special covert operations unit composed of former U.S. special operations personnel who answered to the Pentagon rather than the CIA's Special Activities Division, the agency's own paramilitary group. The Pentagon group included Arabic linguists and former members of the Green Berets and Delta Force who operated covertly in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan. Titan also uses linguists trained in the languages (Arabic, Dari, Farsi, Pashto, Urdu, and Tajik) of those same countries. It is not known if a link exists between Rumsfeld's covert operations unit and Titan's covert operations linguists.

Another Titan employee named in the Taguba report is Adel L. Nakhla. Nakhla is a name common among Egypt's Coptic Christian community, however, it is not known if Adel Nakhla is either an Egyptian-American or a national of Egypt. A CACI employee identified in the report, Steven Stephanowicz, is referred to as "Stefanowicz" in a number of articles on the prison abuse. Stefanowicz is the spelling used by Joe Ryan, another CACI employee assigned with Stefanowicz to Abu Ghraib. Ryan is a radio personality on KSTP, a conservative radio station in Minneapolis, who maintained a daily log of his activities in Iraq on the radio's web site before it was taken down. Ryan indicated that Stefanowicz (or Stephanowicz) continued to hold his interrogation job in Iraq even though General Taguba recommended he lose his security clearance and be terminated for the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

In an even more bizarre twist, the Philadelphia Daily News identified a former expatriate public relations specialist for the government of South Australia in Adelaide named Steve Stefanowicz as possibly being the same person identified in the Taguba report. In 2000, Stefanowicz, who grew up in the Philadelphia and Allentown areas, left for Australia. On September 16, 2001, he was quoted by the Sunday Mail of Adelaide on the 911 attacks. He said of the attacks, "It was one of the most incredible and most devastating things I have ever seen. I have been in constant contact with my family and friends in the US and the mood was very solemn and quiet. But this is progressing into anger." Stefanowicz returned to the United States and volunteered for the Navy in a reserve status. His mother told the Allentown Morning Call in April 2002 that Stefanowicz was stationed somewhere in the Middle East but did not know where because of what Stefanowicz said was "security concerns." His mother told the Philadelphia Daily News that her son was in Iraq but she knew nothing about his current status.

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and columnist. He served in the National Security Agency (NSA) during the Reagan administration and wrote the introduction to Forbidden Truth. He is the co-author, with John Stanton, of "America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II." His forthcoming book is titled: "Jaded Tasks: Big Oil, Black Ops, and Brass Plates."

1,100 Palestinians homeless: First 10 days of May. Becky ? (The homeless activist)

Homes of 1,100 Palestinians in Gaza destroyed - UN agency

UNRWA chief Peter Hansen
10 May 2004 – The last 10 days have seen one of the most intense periods of destruction by the Israeli military in Gaza since the start of the Intifada, with more than 100 homes flattened and 1,100 people left homeless, the main United Nations agency helping Palestinian refugees said today.

According to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), the Israeli military has demolished or damaged beyond repair 131 residential buildings since the start of May, bringing to 17,594 the total number of people who have lost their homes in Gaza.

The majority of the demolitions have taken place in Rafah in the south, where 11,215 people have already been made homeless by demolitions since the beginning of the current strife in September 2000, and in the region of the Kissufim Road, where a Palestinian attack on 2 May left an Israeli mother and her four children dead.

UNRWA Commissioner-General Peter Hansen said the Agency condemned "without reservation the 2 May killings, as it does the killing of innocent Palestinians and their children, as international law simply forbids collective punishment."

"The overwhelming majority of the more than 17,000 Palestinians who have lost their homes in Gaza since the start of the intifada have been guilty of nothing more than living in the wrong place at the wrong time," he said.

UNRWA, the largest humanitarian operation in the occupied Palestinian territory, has been providing those who have lost their homes with water, food, blankets and cash assistance. With funding from donors, the Agency has been able to build new shelters in safe places for several hundred of the homeless families, but its resources are unable to meet the growing humanitarian crisis faced by those without shelter.

Re: Oasis Of Peace / Israel

"Homes of 1,100 Palestinians in Gaza destroyed "

Intifada is the direct cause for all of the Pali woes in the last 3.5 years...

UN Overwhelmingly affirms Palestinian Rights

UN Gen Assembly Palestinians Right To Sovereignty
Friday, 7 May 2004, 10:29 am
Press Release: United Nations

General Assembly Overwhelmingly Affirms Palestinians Right To Sovereignty
The 191-member United Nations General Assembly today overwhelmingly affirmed the need to enable the Palestinian people "to exercise sovereignty and to achieve independence in their State, Palestine."

By a vote of 140 in favour to 6 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and the United States), with 11 abstentions, the Assembly adopted a resolution that also affirmed that "the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation."

The text also affirmed, in accordance with the rules and principles of international law, and relevant resolutions of the Security Council, that "the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over this territory and that Israel, the occupying power, has only the duties and obligations of an occupying Power under the Fourth Geneva Convention and the IV Hague Convention of 1907."

The Assembly also expressed its determination to contribute to a comprehensive negotiated peace settlement in the Middle East, resulting "in two viable, sovereign and independent states, Israel and Palestine, based on the pre-1967 borders and living side by side in peace and security."

UN Bloody UN

"General Assembly Overwhelmingly Affirms Palestinians Right To Sovereignty"

No Shiite!!
Hey, I wonder how king Abdullah feels about that?
(the UN has been financing the palis in the world's longest running welfare's good business!!)

Stop the Israeli Wellfare state

Actually, the United States is financing the illegal apartheid wall and the illegal occupation to the tune of 10 million dollars a day! Why are we financing Israel again? Our tax dollars go to paying for the wall which will anex over 50% of Palestinian land to Israel. It is in direct violation of international law.

Israel is the biggest wellfare state of all. Holy Shiite, Zionist man...get a clue!

More on UN resolution 242

Below is the text you quoted from UN resolution 242 passed in 1967 right after Israel won a defensive war against 5 Arab nations trying to genocide them. At the time it was passed, Israel was in full occupation of the Golan Heights, the West Bank, Gaza, and much of the Sinai peninsula. The UN declared that Israel had not been the aggressor, and because it was only defending itself, it had the legal right to continue to control lands seized in battle.

Israel was expected to give up its military and administrative control as soon as peace treaties could be negotiated and signed. BTW there was no "Palestine". No one talked of a Palestinian nation. That came later.

excerpt from UN Resolution 242

"Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;"


(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Note: it says "Of every state in the area" meaning that Palestine was not even considered since it wasnt a state in the area.


Israel has proceeded with negotiations with Jordan, signed a peace treaty, negotiated borders, and has mutual recognized sovereignty with the State of Jordan.

Israel has proceeded with negotiations with Egypt, signed a peace treaty with Egypt, given back 94% of the land it took over in 1967 (especially in the Sinai which had enough oil to supply Israel's needs forever), and has mutually recognized borders.

In 1994, Israel signed a peace treaty (the Oslo accords) with the Palestinians. Negotiated borders. turned over civil administrative control to a brand new, Palestinian Authority created just for this task.

But Arafat couldn't let Israel live in peace and security. He aided and abetted terrorist attacks to disrupt the peace process, and never abandoned his affiliation with terror groups whose true goal is the destruction of Israel. That is why Israel still occupies the West Bank and Gaza. It is because the Palestinian Arabs dont want peace. They want Israel. All of it.

No peace treaty will ever be good enough for these leaders. they will stop at nothing but the whole enchilada--- the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel. Palestinian violence didnt stop. It was accelerated.

So-until a peace agreement can be formed, Israel still LEGALLY occupies what may someday become Palestinian lands. And as it legally occupies the land, building on it is legal too.


No events for this day.

view calendar week
add an event


Media Centers

Syndication feeds

Account Login

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software