Saturday, March 05, 2011
Elder of ZiyonThings are getting very busy in the Elder house, so posts will be spotty for the next week or two.
Meanwhile...here's an open thread!
Meanwhile...here's an open thread!
Saturday, March 05, 2011
Saturday, March 05, 2011
Elder of Ziyon
From Zvi:
Stephen Walt - who has done so much to promote the myth of "the Israel Lobby" - wrote the following after visitingTripoli in 2010.
Of course, Walt evidently stayed in a top-level hotel that caters to westerners, "toured Tripoli" for a few hours (with minders?) and met primarily with regime officials of the sort who monitor Washington politics. A few years before, Michael Totten described a very different set of impressions: [http://pajamasmedia.com/michaeltotten/2011/02/20/in-the-land-of-the-brother-leader-2]
Michael Moynihan visited Tripoli at around the same time as Walt, and his report has a lot more in common with Totten's than with Walt's. Moynihan also writes, quite openly, that the Libya trip that he took (with fellow journalists) was funded by the Qaddafi Foundation under the auspices of Saif al-Islam. He wrote:
So let's get back to Stephen Walt, who - unlike Moynihan - did not mention that the trip was funded, or how much he has been paid for his services by the Qaddafi regime:
Rapproachment with Qaddafi was a "success story"? Qaddafi as a "valuable ally in the war on terror?" "Reform" going on in Libya? Well, we've all seen how much "reform" was really going on, and what a stellar "success story" it was for the US to coddle Qaddafi. What about Libya as a valuable ally in the war on terror? Was Walt swinging "1 for 3"?
Michael Totten wrote, in 2008, that "U.S. military officials believe 19 percent of foreign terrorists in Iraq come from Libya." [http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2008/01/30/libya’s-son/]
[http://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/gadhafi-18218-iraq-mosul.html]
To my knowledge, nobody has proven this particular accusation against Seif al-Islam Qaddafi, and the high percentage of "exported" Libyan terrorists in Iraq does not necessarily constitute direct evidence against Qaddafi's regime, so maybe this does not instantly confirm that Qaddafi was busily sponsoring terror in Iraq in 2008. But to single Libya out - as Walt does - as "a valuable ally of the US" in the war on terror is laughable. So that's "0 for 3."
So what was Walt doing in Libya, and how much was he paid by Qaddafi-affiliated institutions?
Walt was in Libya at the invitation of the Libyan "Economic Development Board." The EDB was launched by none other than Saif al-Islam, together with (apparently) Harvard professor Michael Porter. This is doubly interesting, because Porter is the founder of the Monitor Group and was responsible for introducing the Qaddafi regime to the Monitor Group.
The London Bureau Chief for Business Week wrote about the EDB and the Monitor Group in 2007, when Seif al-Islam and Michael Porter launched it:
Now, the Monitor Group is the organization that Qaddafi used to fabricate a positive impressions in the western media. Farah Stockman writes in the Boston Globe (March 2011):
The LEDB was repeatedly used to engage western intellectuals in supposed "reform" projects, potentially generating positive press. According to the leaked Monitor Group document, "Project to Enhance the Profile of Libya and Muammar Qadhafi", academicians and other visitors were used by the regime:
The Monitor Group document explicitly links visits by foreign opinion-leaders with the campaign to polish Qaddafi's image abroad.
Walt is not directly named in the Monitor document; however, the document shows that the Libyan regime used the LEDB to bring high-profile academicians (like Walt) and others to Tripoli and attempted to use them to gain positive press for the regime and to do some lobbying on behalf of the regime. Further, Britain's Guardian newspaper quotes a Monitor Group letter to Qaddafi thug Abdallah al-Sanusi, discussing the effort:
Walt was brought to Libya as part of a well-organized and well-funded propaganda campaign, and given Walt's position as a mainstreamer of conspiracy theories about Israel/Jews, it seems fairly obvious why Walt appealed to the Qaddafi regime.
The Arab Lobby at its best, eh? Walt, who has made a name for himself by creating sinister fictions about Israel supporters, allowed the lobbyists of a REAL dictatorship, led by a delusional and mass-murdering psychopath, to use him.
Lest one think that the LEDB was an organization given to largesse without expectation of some "quid pro quo", a document leaked by wikileaks contains a detailed report on discussions with Mahmoud Jibril, the LEDB's chairman. The document states:
(Not only does this shed light on the expectations that the LEDB and the Qaddafis brought to the table when they funded something; it also sheds light on the manner in which the Qaddafis approach business and politics in general. You can't get anything done in Libya without bribing the Qaddafis and their cronies. I wonder why).
The Qaddafi regime has demonstrated again and again that they will do nothing without being paid or threatened. For example, when presented with requests to provide reparations for the assets abandoned by Libyan Jews, they tried to convince Libyan-Jewish Israelis to create a Libyan-funded political party. [http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/22686/Default.aspx]
So has Walt acknowledged his (evidently) Qaddafi-funded trip? And did he provide value in exchange for whatever he was paid? Is he being dishonest?
To my knowledge, Walt has not acknowledged any of this in his recent writings, nor has he acknowledged, in the light of subsequent event, his laughable assertions about the Qaddafi regime at the time. Just as importantly, Walt has not clarified how much he was paid for his Libya trip or for any other lectures, paid papers or other tasks completed for this or other Arab regimes.
Rather, Walt seems to conspicuously ignore his past contacts with the Libyan regime and its lobbyists. And today, he is of course on the side of the angels; on Feb 22, with the Libyan revolt under way, he was happy to trash the Libyan regime. But only a few weeks before, when he had written that he doubted that the Tunisian revolt would spread, where was this anti-Qaddafi fervor?
Martin Kramer, in FaceBook comments, writes about a Jacob Heilbrunn story:
Kramer cites Michael Moynihan, who was brought to Tripoli at around the same time as Walt, but who - unlike most of the visitors, saw the visit for what it was - "A Libyan Charm Offensive": [http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/22/a-libyan-charm-offensive]
H/t for the original information that Walt visited Qaddafi's Libya and returned to the west to promote rapprochement with the dictator: Martin Peretz. [http://www.tnr.com/article/tel-aviv-journal/84370/libya-saif-qaddafi-western-allies]
Stephen Walt - who has done so much to promote the myth of "the Israel Lobby" - wrote the following after visitingTripoli in 2010.
"First, although Libya is far from a democracy, it also doesn't feel like other police states that I have visited. I caught no whiff of an omnipresent security service -- which is not to say that they aren't there -- and there were fewer police or military personnel on the streets than one saw in Franco's Spain." [http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/01/18/the_shores_of_tripoli]
Of course, Walt evidently stayed in a top-level hotel that caters to westerners, "toured Tripoli" for a few hours (with minders?) and met primarily with regime officials of the sort who monitor Washington politics. A few years before, Michael Totten described a very different set of impressions: [http://pajamasmedia.com/michaeltotten/2011/02/20/in-the-land-of-the-brother-leader-2]
Michael Moynihan visited Tripoli at around the same time as Walt, and his report has a lot more in common with Totten's than with Walt's. Moynihan also writes, quite openly, that the Libya trip that he took (with fellow journalists) was funded by the Qaddafi Foundation under the auspices of Saif al-Islam. He wrote:
"It’s not entirely clear why I am in Libya, although it would have been rude to refuse a trip funded by the generous and, according to their hired help, deeply misunderstood comrades of the Qaddafi Foundation. At the behest of Saif al-Qaddafi—Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi’s slick, London-educated son and dauphin—our group of journalists is being shuttled to the country in an effort to demonstrate a new Libyan openness and, it is implied, a future rather different from the past. Personally, I’m more interested in sneaking a glimpse at the world’s only Islamo-socialist personality cult."
So let's get back to Stephen Walt, who - unlike Moynihan - did not mention that the trip was funded, or how much he has been paid for his services by the Qaddafi regime:
"My own view (even before I visited) is that the improvement of U.S.-Libyan relations as one of the few (only?) success stories in recent U.S. Middle East diplomacy... . Libya has also been a valuable ally in the “war on terror”... One hopes that the United States and Libya continue to nurture and build a constructive relationship, and that economic and political reform continues there. (I wouldn’t mind seeing more dramatic political reform—of a different sort—here too). The United States could use a few more friends in that part of the world."
Rapproachment with Qaddafi was a "success story"? Qaddafi as a "valuable ally in the war on terror?" "Reform" going on in Libya? Well, we've all seen how much "reform" was really going on, and what a stellar "success story" it was for the US to coddle Qaddafi. What about Libya as a valuable ally in the war on terror? Was Walt swinging "1 for 3"?
Michael Totten wrote, in 2008, that "U.S. military officials believe 19 percent of foreign terrorists in Iraq come from Libya." [http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2008/01/30/libya’s-son/]
The unproven assertion about the purported Seifaddin Regiment in northern Iraq, and its Qaddafi sponsor, appears to trace back to an Anbar Awakening security chief named Col. Naief:
"Col. Jubair Rashid Naief, who also is a police official in Anbar province, said those attacks were carried out by the Seifaddin Regiment, made up of about 150 foreign and Iraqi fighters who slipped into the country several months ago from Syria.
Naief said the regiment, which is working with al-Qaida in Iraq, was supported by Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, 36, the eldest son of the Libyan leader."
[http://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/gadhafi-18218-iraq-mosul.html]
To my knowledge, nobody has proven this particular accusation against Seif al-Islam Qaddafi, and the high percentage of "exported" Libyan terrorists in Iraq does not necessarily constitute direct evidence against Qaddafi's regime, so maybe this does not instantly confirm that Qaddafi was busily sponsoring terror in Iraq in 2008. But to single Libya out - as Walt does - as "a valuable ally of the US" in the war on terror is laughable. So that's "0 for 3."
So what was Walt doing in Libya, and how much was he paid by Qaddafi-affiliated institutions?
Walt was in Libya at the invitation of the Libyan "Economic Development Board." The EDB was launched by none other than Saif al-Islam, together with (apparently) Harvard professor Michael Porter. This is doubly interesting, because Porter is the founder of the Monitor Group and was responsible for introducing the Qaddafi regime to the Monitor Group.
The London Bureau Chief for Business Week wrote about the EDB and the Monitor Group in 2007, when Seif al-Islam and Michael Porter launched it:
"Saif al-Islam al-Qaddafi and Harvard Business School professor Michael Porter at a press conference on Feb. 22 after the launch of the Libyan Economic Development Board. Saif courted Porter, who is known for his work on competitiveness, for years before persuading him to take on the task of helping with economic reform in Libya. Porter brought in Monitor Group, which he co-founded, to help the Libyans with an analysis of the business environment. The Libyan Economic Development Board is intended to cut through Libya's dysfunctional politics and make economic reform happen." [http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07/03/0314_libya/source/2.htm]
"Qaddafi's son, Seif al Islam (Sword of Islam), is making a career of trying to reform what is by many measures one of the world's most backward economies. Now, thanks to his relationship with Porter and Monitor Group, a consulting firm with which Porter is affiliated, a roadmap for restructuring is emerging." [http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/feb2007/gb20070220_956124.htm]
Now, the Monitor Group is the organization that Qaddafi used to fabricate a positive impressions in the western media. Farah Stockman writes in the Boston Globe (March 2011):
"It reads like Libyan government propaganda, extolling the importance of Moammar Khadafy, his theories on democracy, and his “core ideas on individual freedom.
But the 22-page proposal for a book on Khadafy was written by Monitor Group, a Cambridge-based consultant firm founded by Harvard professors. The management consulting firm received $250,000 a month from the Libyan government from 2006 to 2008 for a wide range of services, including writing the book proposal, bringing prominent academics to Libya to meet Khadafy “to enhance international appreciation of Libya’’ and trying to generate positive news coverage of the country.
As the crisis in Libya deepens, Monitor’s role in Libya has come under increasing scrutiny." [http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/03/04/local_consultants_aided_khadafy]
The LEDB was repeatedly used to engage western intellectuals in supposed "reform" projects, potentially generating positive press. According to the leaked Monitor Group document, "Project to Enhance the Profile of Libya and Muammar Qadhafi", academicians and other visitors were used by the regime:
"Visitors had the opportunity to meet and exchange ideas with Libyan individuals including the Leader, Saif al-Islam al-Qadhafi, senior government officials, leading political scientists and academics, and prominent members of the business community.
Each visitor described how their visit challenged some of their pre-conceived notions about the country. Each individual articulated his or her desire to remain connected to Libya, to visit again, to meet the Leader again (or for the first time in some cases) in order to pursue their dialogue. All remained convinced that the role they were playing was to encourage Libya to continue on its path of increasing interaction with other nations, developing its economy to create greater prosperity for all Libyans, and finding a way for Libya to contribute productively to regional and global issues.
These visits also provided a unique and privileged account of conversations between Qadhafi and international thought-leaders. The conversations between Qadhafi and some of the most renowned and influential scholars and philosophers of recent history were deeply personal, congenial, and thought-provoking. The account of these conversations is extraordinarily valuable because it reflects aspects of the Leader that are little known to most outsiders, sheds valuable insight into governance in Libya, and informs a more profound and thoughtful understanding of Libya.
A number of the visitors delivered public lectures in Tripoli during their visits. These were all very well-attended with at least 200 people in the audience. There was active dialogue between the public and the speakers which often exceeded the time allotted for the lectures.Ultimately most visitors had the opportunity to meet a cross-section of Libyan people, an experience which each one of them acknowledged was meaningful.
Many of the visitors Monitor brought to Libya have individually briefed all levels of the United States government including specifically the President, Vice President, Heads of National Security and Intelligence as well as the Secretary of State.
To accompany this document we have assembled a binder containing the “Output and content of Phase 1”. Section 2 of this binder includes the materials associated with the visits to Libya of each individual...
Monitor undertook to work with the client to identify appropriate individuals. The client provided a list of preferred individuals which Monitor supplemented with additional visitors. In addition, over the course of the project Monitor developed an extensive list of high-caliber individuals who could visit Libya in the future. In the next phase of the project Monitor and the client should work closely to develop a strategy to further develop Libya’s international network. This requires jointly identifying relevant individuals of interest." [http://www.libya-nclo.com/Portals/0/pdf%20files/Monitor%203.pdf]).
The Monitor Group document explicitly links visits by foreign opinion-leaders with the campaign to polish Qaddafi's image abroad.
Walt is not directly named in the Monitor document; however, the document shows that the Libyan regime used the LEDB to bring high-profile academicians (like Walt) and others to Tripoli and attempted to use them to gain positive press for the regime and to do some lobbying on behalf of the regime. Further, Britain's Guardian newspaper quotes a Monitor Group letter to Qaddafi thug Abdallah al-Sanusi, discussing the effort:
"We will create a network map to identify significant figures engaged or interested in Libya today ... We will identify and encourage journalists, academics and contemporary thinkers who will have interest in publishing papers and articles on Libya," the letter claims." [http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/mar/04/lse-libya-anthony-giddens-gaddafi]
Walt was brought to Libya as part of a well-organized and well-funded propaganda campaign, and given Walt's position as a mainstreamer of conspiracy theories about Israel/Jews, it seems fairly obvious why Walt appealed to the Qaddafi regime.
The Arab Lobby at its best, eh? Walt, who has made a name for himself by creating sinister fictions about Israel supporters, allowed the lobbyists of a REAL dictatorship, led by a delusional and mass-murdering psychopath, to use him.
Lest one think that the LEDB was an organization given to largesse without expectation of some "quid pro quo", a document leaked by wikileaks contains a detailed report on discussions with Mahmoud Jibril, the LEDB's chairman. The document states:
"Jibril offered that the U.S. approaches relationships as economic and transactional, whereas Arab culture puts a premium on tribal ties in which gifts are given and expected, but not asked for or stipulated... Jibril stressed that as an Arab, Sadat did not feel he needed to ask for anything because the U.S. should have perceived that he had offered something and reciprocated of its own accord." [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294883/HEAD-OF-LIBYAS-ECONOMIC-DEVELOPMENT-BOARD-U.S.-LIBYA-RELATIONS-NOT-JUST-ABOUT-OIL.html]
(Not only does this shed light on the expectations that the LEDB and the Qaddafis brought to the table when they funded something; it also sheds light on the manner in which the Qaddafis approach business and politics in general. You can't get anything done in Libya without bribing the Qaddafis and their cronies. I wonder why).
The Qaddafi regime has demonstrated again and again that they will do nothing without being paid or threatened. For example, when presented with requests to provide reparations for the assets abandoned by Libyan Jews, they tried to convince Libyan-Jewish Israelis to create a Libyan-funded political party. [http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/22686/Default.aspx]
So has Walt acknowledged his (evidently) Qaddafi-funded trip? And did he provide value in exchange for whatever he was paid? Is he being dishonest?
To my knowledge, Walt has not acknowledged any of this in his recent writings, nor has he acknowledged, in the light of subsequent event, his laughable assertions about the Qaddafi regime at the time. Just as importantly, Walt has not clarified how much he was paid for his Libya trip or for any other lectures, paid papers or other tasks completed for this or other Arab regimes.
Rather, Walt seems to conspicuously ignore his past contacts with the Libyan regime and its lobbyists. And today, he is of course on the side of the angels; on Feb 22, with the Libyan revolt under way, he was happy to trash the Libyan regime. But only a few weeks before, when he had written that he doubted that the Tunisian revolt would spread, where was this anti-Qaddafi fervor?
Martin Kramer, in FaceBook comments, writes about a Jacob Heilbrunn story:
"This piece by Jacob Heilbrunn is dishonest. "The efforts of the Bush administration to reach out to Gaddafi made sense," he writes, "but seeking to improve Gaddafi's image is another matter." And then he attacks Richard Perle. Well, Perle didn't write any articles praising Qaddhafi. Benjamin Barber, Joe Nye, Robert Putnam, and Stephen Walt did. Those liberal endorsements were worth gold." [http://www.facebook.com/martinkramer.page/posts/149336985125539]
Kramer cites Michael Moynihan, who was brought to Tripoli at around the same time as Walt, but who - unlike most of the visitors, saw the visit for what it was - "A Libyan Charm Offensive": [http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/22/a-libyan-charm-offensive]
H/t for the original information that Walt visited Qaddafi's Libya and returned to the west to promote rapprochement with the dictator: Martin Peretz. [http://www.tnr.com/article/tel-aviv-journal/84370/libya-saif-qaddafi-western-allies]
Friday, March 04, 2011
- Friday, March 04, 2011
- Elder of Ziyon
Barry Rubin has seen what he calls "what might be the most frightening paragraph in the modern history of U.S. Middle East policy."
Yaacov Lozowick looks at a New Yorker article fawning over Ha'aretz.
Richard Landes at The Augean Stables has been putting together must-read daily linkdumps.
One of them is the English translation of an article I linked to yesterday, by Adi Schwartz. It is very worth reading and passing on.
Shabbat Shalom!
Yaacov Lozowick looks at a New Yorker article fawning over Ha'aretz.
Richard Landes at The Augean Stables has been putting together must-read daily linkdumps.
One of them is the English translation of an article I linked to yesterday, by Adi Schwartz. It is very worth reading and passing on.
Shabbat Shalom!
- Friday, March 04, 2011
- Elder of Ziyon
It is not only Fatah and Hamas who are planning fake Facebook revolutions against the other, hoping to gain traction.
It looks like Ma'an News Agency is doing the same thing:
It has no specifics whatsoever.
Where on Facebook is this group? What is its name? How many people are involved? How many have signed on? How can they be contacted? What are the names of anyone associated with the group? What evidence is there that any of the names dropped by the organizers as being "contacted" (meaning, emailed) are even aware of the group?
In other words, what makes Ma'an believe that a Facebook group that anyone could set up is newsworthy?
It took a short while, but I found the group on Facebook. It has a mere 133 members. It shows no organization, no concrete actions, just a call by a person or two for "revolution." It is tiny, inconsequential and worthless, and there is no evidence that it has any real support.
Yet Ma'an reports this Facebook group that any ten year old could create as if it is a major news story.
Which means that Ma'an is not trying to report the news, but it is trying to create it, by giving the impression of a huge groundswell of support for a tiny initiative.
It looks like Ma'an News Agency is doing the same thing:
Palestinian students and rights activists in Gaza have initiated a campaign for Palestinian refugees aiming to harness the winds of change in the Middle East and mobilize the diaspora into action.Notice anything missing from this "news" article?
On May 15, the group said, more than 1 million people will participate in a global sit-in at Israeli embassies worldwide.
An organizer in Gaza told Ma'an that a preparatory committee was making contacts regionally and internationally, and a coordinated effort was underway to demand the return of 9 million refugees from camps in the Middle East and abroad.
"It is not our goal to criticize, affect or push negotiations or international treaties. We are only demanding the right of return to occupied territories," the organizer said.
Figures known for their work on refugee rights have been contacted, organizers said. Among them: former Palestinian member of the Knesset Azmi Bishara, Palestinian researcher, academic and leader of the Palestinian Right of Return Coalition Salman Abu Sittah and former British MP George Galloway.
Palestinian communities in Europe and Latin America were being targeted for the rally, and being asked to gather outside Israeli diplomatic offices in world capitals.
In the Middle East, organizers said locations were being kept under wraps, for fear that measures would be taken to quash the peaceful action before its launch.
It has no specifics whatsoever.
Where on Facebook is this group? What is its name? How many people are involved? How many have signed on? How can they be contacted? What are the names of anyone associated with the group? What evidence is there that any of the names dropped by the organizers as being "contacted" (meaning, emailed) are even aware of the group?
In other words, what makes Ma'an believe that a Facebook group that anyone could set up is newsworthy?
It took a short while, but I found the group on Facebook. It has a mere 133 members. It shows no organization, no concrete actions, just a call by a person or two for "revolution." It is tiny, inconsequential and worthless, and there is no evidence that it has any real support.
Yet Ma'an reports this Facebook group that any ten year old could create as if it is a major news story.
Which means that Ma'an is not trying to report the news, but it is trying to create it, by giving the impression of a huge groundswell of support for a tiny initiative.
- Friday, March 04, 2011
- Elder of Ziyon
Arab and anti-Israel sites have been abuzz over the past couple of days over this story (this version from Tehran Times:)
First, the first published source was the Israeli Inyan Mercazi (Central issues) website. The article there quotes unnamed Egyptian sources making these accusations, including the charge that the CEO of the company met with Netanyahu and other Israeli officials and received explicit approval to provide weapons and men for Gaddafi.
So already we see that the original source for this article is suspect. No documents are reproduced, no proof is made, and how could an Egyptian source know that the Global CST CEO met with Israeli leaders, let alone what transpired in the meetings?
All these unsourced accusations are being repeated without confirmation by Inyan Mercazi.
The Israeli site then adds on some background: that the company was once in trouble for selling arms to some African country in the past, and indeed it does provide security services worldwide.
Let's look at the previous incident, as it will shed light on how absurd this rumor is:
From Ha'aretz, May 6, 2010:
Is it a coincidence that this was the same rumor that erupted in the early days of the Libyan uprising, when both sides accused the other of Zionist collusion?
Tracing back this rumor, there is not a shred of evidence and it belies logic. That of course doesn't stop people who hate Israel from seizing on this story, buttressed by it being quoted in an Israeli newspaper, as being unquestionably true.
Ma'an picked up on the story, from where it spread to Al Jazeera, where it then turned into 50,000 mercenaries being recruited from South Sudan, Chad, Nigeria - and Guinea, the same country we know that Global CST is banned from dealing with!
Interestingly, Global CST's head, General Yisrael Ziv, sent a letter to Al Jazeera completely denying the story, calling it absurd, ridiculous and disgusting, and saying that Al Jazeera's broadcasting of these lies threatens the legitimate security work done by the company. (They have done security work worldwide, including Georgia.)
Of course, it is now too late, and none of the news sites are bothering to publish the explicit denials of a story that had no basis to begin with. Israel haters don't need proof for their lies, after all - just a small peg to hang their lies on, one that was provided this time - stupidly - by an Israeli newspaper.
(h/t Suzanne and Naftali)
Israeli arms distribution company Global CST has reportedly, under the authorization of Tel Aviv, provided Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi with African mercenaries to clamp down on anti-government protesters.Like all good rumors, this one has a tiny shred of truth.
Egyptian sources have revealed that the Israeli company has so far provided Gaddafi's regime with 50,000 African mercenaries to attack the civilian anti-government protesters in Libya.
The arms company was previously convicted in an African country over illegal deals, News-Israel website reported.
Sources say Global CST had obtained the permission for providing the mercenaries to Gaddafi from the Israeli officials in advance.
First, the first published source was the Israeli Inyan Mercazi (Central issues) website. The article there quotes unnamed Egyptian sources making these accusations, including the charge that the CEO of the company met with Netanyahu and other Israeli officials and received explicit approval to provide weapons and men for Gaddafi.
So already we see that the original source for this article is suspect. No documents are reproduced, no proof is made, and how could an Egyptian source know that the Global CST CEO met with Israeli leaders, let alone what transpired in the meetings?
All these unsourced accusations are being repeated without confirmation by Inyan Mercazi.
The Israeli site then adds on some background: that the company was once in trouble for selling arms to some African country in the past, and indeed it does provide security services worldwide.
Let's look at the previous incident, as it will shed light on how absurd this rumor is:
From Ha'aretz, May 6, 2010:
The Defense Ministry's recently fined Global CST and its owner, Maj. Gen. (ret. ) Israel Ziv for deviating from the restricted permit it was granted by the ministry and signing a contract with the government of Guinea to set up and train Special Forces there and supply them with weapons. According to sources in the Defense Ministry, it was agreed that the fine, around NIS 90,000, would not be transferred to the state's coffers, and instead the company would invest it in developing training courses for its employees, where they would learn the Defense Ministry's guidelines and export regulations. Global CST denies they were fined, but confirmed that it had been ordered to retrain its employees.This means that the company will not do anything without the approval of the Israeli government. So in order to believe this story, you must believe that Israel is supporting sending mercenaries to Gaddafi.
Is it a coincidence that this was the same rumor that erupted in the early days of the Libyan uprising, when both sides accused the other of Zionist collusion?
Tracing back this rumor, there is not a shred of evidence and it belies logic. That of course doesn't stop people who hate Israel from seizing on this story, buttressed by it being quoted in an Israeli newspaper, as being unquestionably true.
Ma'an picked up on the story, from where it spread to Al Jazeera, where it then turned into 50,000 mercenaries being recruited from South Sudan, Chad, Nigeria - and Guinea, the same country we know that Global CST is banned from dealing with!
Interestingly, Global CST's head, General Yisrael Ziv, sent a letter to Al Jazeera completely denying the story, calling it absurd, ridiculous and disgusting, and saying that Al Jazeera's broadcasting of these lies threatens the legitimate security work done by the company. (They have done security work worldwide, including Georgia.)
Of course, it is now too late, and none of the news sites are bothering to publish the explicit denials of a story that had no basis to begin with. Israel haters don't need proof for their lies, after all - just a small peg to hang their lies on, one that was provided this time - stupidly - by an Israeli newspaper.
(h/t Suzanne and Naftali)
- Friday, March 04, 2011
- Elder of Ziyon
J Street
Wonderful insights from Z-Street's Lori Lowenthal Marcus:
While attending the J Street conference I wondered whether I had entered some alternative dimension, where facts known by the rest of the world, and basic principles of reasoning, just didn't operate in quite the same way as they do on the rest of planet Earth. I think I know what's operating.Read the whole thing.
Psychologists teach that an obsession is "a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling." There is a persistent theme on J Street: a Palestinian State must be created RIGHT NOW ("PSRN"), and it's almost as if there is a complete memory block about the refusals of varying forms of the state, including the original offer by the United Nations of yet another Arab State in 1947.
That PSRN is J Street's obsession is revealed by the fact that unanimity on that "solution" co-exists with radical disagreement about the nature of the problem. Here's an abbreviated list of the ideological positions you pass as you walk down J Street:
...Around the corner we learn from Knesset member Shlomo Molla that bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Arab Palestinians are the only way to move towards peace in the region. Two houses down on the same street, Tom Dine of Search for Common Ground tells us that bilateral movement is impossible, and instead a regional approach is the only possibility for peace. And that the only choice open to Israel is to create a PSRN.
Just across J Street from these guys is New York Times reporter Roger Cohen who insists that the unrest in the Middle East is actually weakening Iran, while down the block we learn from the Saban Center's Shibley Telhami that Iran is the main threat in the region. Iran is weaker, says Cohen, so now is the time to create a Palestinian State, and Iran is the major threat, says Telhami, so now is the time to create a Palestinian State. Polar opposite reasoning, yet naturally both ineluctably lead to the conclusion that the only possible answer is the immediate creation of a Palestinian State.
Hebrew University professor Bernard Avishai berated Dennis Ross for wimpishly claiming that "bilateral negotiations is the only mechanism" for achieving peace. Avishai instead called for an "Obama Blueprint" in which the US uses its bully pulpit to galvanize "international momentum and pressure" (on Israel, of course), to create a Palestinian State. In the same building but down a few flights we heard from the ubiquitous Egyptian journalist Mona Eltahawy that the "West has become irrelevant" and that rather than the West, the region demands freedom and dignity for the Palestinians. Both agreed about one thing -- wait, I'm trying to remember -- oh yes, the need to create a PSRN.
- Friday, March 04, 2011
- Elder of Ziyon
We had touched on the controversy of the London School of Economics accepting a £1.5 million donation from Saif Gaddafi.
I had missed this great quote from the director of the school, Sir Howard Davies, made in the Times of London last Monday to defend the donation (quoted in Just Journalism):
(Davis has just resigned over accepting the Libya donation.)
I had missed this great quote from the director of the school, Sir Howard Davies, made in the Times of London last Monday to defend the donation (quoted in Just Journalism):
Sir Howard defended the LSE’s new Middle East Centre, half of whose board support an academic boycott of Israel. “The biggest donor to the School in the past year is George Soros, who of course is of Jewish origin. We operate, I believe, a very balanced view.”’We love taking money from both Jewish and Arab haters of Israel! How much more balanced can one be?
(Davis has just resigned over accepting the Libya donation.)
- Friday, March 04, 2011
- Elder of Ziyon
Yesterday, Ma'an did everything it could to avoid mentioning that Hamas had robbed a bank in Gaza. But now that others have made the accusations, Ma'an feels it can report on the story.
And it is a doozy.
And it is a doozy.
The Palestinian governments in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are at loggerheads again after the Palestinian Monetary Authority accused security forces in Gaza of robbing a bank.Can you believe that Israel is so intransigent as to refuse to negotiate with this wonderful, pragmatic, respected political group?
The PMA announced Thursday that all banks in the Gaza Strip would close following a robbery at the Palestine Investment Bank in Gaza City.
Authority deputy Muhammad Manasreh told Ma'an that Gaza government officials stole $340,000 from the bank over two days.
On Tuesday, an official from the Hamas-led Ministry of Interior seized $90,000 from the bank by force after bank employees refused to honor a check due to insufficient funds in the account, Manasreh said.
The following day, the same official tried to cash a check for $250,000. Again, bank staff refused to honor the check due to insufficient funds. An argument erupted and cashiers called senior Hamas officials who failed to resolve the dispute, the PMA official added.
He said the bank was later raided by armed government security forces who seized $250,000.
- Friday, March 04, 2011
- Elder of Ziyon
From Reuters:
But enough about Mubarak.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' dominant Fatah political faction has demanded that he sack Western-backed Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, according to a letter shown to Reuters on Thursday.Hmmm. The president, who is ruling past his legal term limits by invoking emergency powers, can ignore the demands of his people. He ensures that unpopular, unelected officials who are politically valuable can keep their jobs. This president is considered moderate because he supposedly adheres to Western interests and brutally puts down the people who oppose him, but if he would let his people do what they want he would very possibly be replaced with a radical who would be anti-Western and/or Islamist. The West supports him to the hilt even though he is responsible for major human rights abuses and has shown no flexibility in deepening the peace treaty with Israel.
The letter, signed by senior Fatah officials, was sent to Abbas on Saturday, but the president "did not take it seriously," a Fatah official told Reuters.
However, the request underlined deep political friction at the heart of the Palestinian Authority, with many Fatah activists clearly frustrated by Fayyad, who has no significant political base of his own but wields substantial power.
Fayyad, a former World Bank economist, is widely credited by Western governments with transforming the institutional landscape in the West Bank, successfully building the core structures needed for a planned independent Palestinian state.
As prime minister he controls finances and security, leaving many Fatah members to complain bitterly in private that his high-profile activities are overshadowing their own work.
"We suggest you reconsider re-appointing Dr. Fayyad and (instead) ask that a strong Fatah figure do the job," said the letter, backed by Fatah's central revolutionary council.
But enough about Mubarak.
- Friday, March 04, 2011
- Elder of Ziyon
Roger Cohen in the NYT gives three reasons he thinks Israelis are anxious about the Arab world upheavals.
I'd love to find the Roger Cohen columns from between 1979 and 2011 that gave us a glimpse of this inevitable Egyptian revolution.
Moreover, his very premise is that the Israel/Egyptian peace agreement was a means to ensure Israel's power. In the end, though, Israel is the only party that took a risk at Camp David - giving up a huge amount of territory for nothing more than a piece of paper. His characterization of the peace agreement as some sort of Israeli coup rather than a frightful gamble is ridiculous and borderline slanderous. (And nowhere in his article does he mention that likely Egyptian leaders are all calling to re-examine Camp David, something that gives great credence to the Israeli fears he likes to downplay.)
Here's a bit of education for Roger Cohen - the 2006 election results by district:
Cohen does not deign to listen to what Israel's Prime Minister said explicitly.
But Cohen's list of Israeli fears ignores the actual fears that Netanyahu mentioned in his speech:
Instead, Cohen's solution for the Middle East is, yet again, to pressure Israel to give more concessions to a group that is increasingly anti-American and intransigent.
Cohen is knowingly ignoring facts, writing columns based on how he wants the world to be as opposed to how it is, and, as always, placing the blame on Israel.
Israel is anxious. It preferred the old Middle Eastern order. It could count on the despots, like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, to suppress the jihadists, reject Iran, and play the Israeli-Palestinian game along lines that created a permanent temporariness ever more favorable to Israeli power.Notice "permanent temporariness." Cohen is implying that everyone knew deep down that there would be a wave of popular revolutions in the Arab world, and that Camp David was Israel's way of stopping that inevitability in order to impose its hegemony on the region.
I'd love to find the Roger Cohen columns from between 1979 and 2011 that gave us a glimpse of this inevitable Egyptian revolution.
Moreover, his very premise is that the Israel/Egyptian peace agreement was a means to ensure Israel's power. In the end, though, Israel is the only party that took a risk at Camp David - giving up a huge amount of territory for nothing more than a piece of paper. His characterization of the peace agreement as some sort of Israeli coup rather than a frightful gamble is ridiculous and borderline slanderous. (And nowhere in his article does he mention that likely Egyptian leaders are all calling to re-examine Camp David, something that gives great credence to the Israeli fears he likes to downplay.)
Israelis are doubly worried. They wonder, Mr. President, if you like them in a heart-to-heart way. You’ve been to Cairo, you’ve been to Istanbul, so what’s wrong with Jerusalem? Why won’t you come and kvetch with us, President Obama, and feel our pain?What does this have to do with Egypt? It is true that Israel doesn't feel the same warmth from Obama that it felt from George W. Bush and from Bill Clinton. The reason is because it simply isn't there.
Israelis are triply worried. Elections are unpredictable — just look at Gaza — and now they may be held across the Arab world! There’s the Muslim Brotherhood talking a good line but nursing menace. And what if Jordan goes, too?"Just look at Gaza?" Perhaps we need to remind this self-styled Middle East expert that Hamas was not only elected in Gaza but by Palestinian Arabs as a whole across the West Bank as well.
Here's a bit of education for Roger Cohen - the 2006 election results by district:
Hamas won in Jerusalem, Tulkarem, Nablus, Salfit, Hebron - and even Ramallah!
But Cohen ignores this and barrels on:
I find all the Israeli anxiety troubling for moral and strategic reasons. The moral reason is simple: What could be closer to the hearts of Jews than the sight of peoples fighting to throw off oppression and gain their dignity and freedom?
If Israel has come to such a pass that these noble struggles from Benghazi to Bahrain leave it not just cold but troubled, then what has become of the soul of the Jewish state?
The Middle East’s most vibrant democracy is missing the upside of the birth of new ones.
Cohen has now framed his argument by defining his list of Israeli fears and his criticism of those fears. And, like any good propagandist, Cohen does not base his framing on reality but on a skewed perception that serves his purposes.
Cohen does not deign to listen to what Israel's Prime Minister said explicitly.
Unlike Cohen's thesis that Israelis are against democracy in the Arab world, Netanyahu says flatly:
It is obvious that an Egypt that fully embraces the 21st century and that adopts these reforms would be a source of great hope for the entire world, the region and for us.So much for Cohen's assertion that Israel opposes Arab democracy and "missing the upside of the birth of new ones."
In Israel, we know the value of democratic institutions and the significance of liberty. We know the value of independent courts that protect the rights of individuals and the rule of law; we appreciate the value of a free press and of a parliamentary system with a coalition and an opposition.
It is clear that an Egypt that rests on these institutions, an Egypt that is anchored in democratic values, would never be a threat to peace. On the contrary, if we have learned anything from modern history, it is that the stronger the foundations of democracy, the stronger the foundations of peace. Peace among democracies is strong, and democracy strengthens the peace.
But Cohen's list of Israeli fears ignores the actual fears that Netanyahu mentioned in his speech:
Far away from Washington, Paris, London – and not so far from Jerusalem – is another capital in which there are hopes.Cohen also downplays the basic Israeli worry:
In this capital, there are leaders who can also see the opportunities that change in Egypt could bring.
They also support the millions who took to the streets.
They too speak about the promise of a new day. But for the people in this capital, the promise of a new day is not in its dawn but in the darkness it can bring.
That capital is Teheran, and I assure you, that the leaders in Iran are not interested in the genuine desires of Egyptians for freedom, liberalization or reform, any more than they were interested in answering similar calls for freedom by the Iranian people, their own people, only 18 months ago...
The Iranian regime is not interested in seeing an Egypt that protects the rights of individuals, women and minorities. They are not interested in an enlightened Egypt that embraces the 21st century. They want an Egypt that returns to the Middle Ages.
They want Egypt to become another Gaza, run by radical forces that oppose everything that the democratic world stands for.
We have two separate worlds here, two opposites, two worldviews: that of the free, democratic world and that of the radical world. Which one of them will prevail in Egypt? The answer to this question is crucial to the future of Egypt, of the region and to our own future here in Israel...
Should the forces that wish to carefully reform and democratize Egypt prevail, I am convinced that such positive change would also buttress a wider Arab-Israeli peace. But we are not there yet .
For over 30 years we have enjoyed peace on two fronts. One is a peaceful border with Egypt, and the second the peaceful border with Jordan... It has changed the world and it has changed the State of Israel. It changed our strategic situation.Cohen does not even address Iran nor the basic problem of preserving the peace agreement - even though every frontrunner for Egyptian leadership has stated that they would revisit Camp David.
That is why preserving the existing peace is vital for us.
Instead, Cohen's solution for the Middle East is, yet again, to pressure Israel to give more concessions to a group that is increasingly anti-American and intransigent.
Cohen is knowingly ignoring facts, writing columns based on how he wants the world to be as opposed to how it is, and, as always, placing the blame on Israel.
Thursday, March 03, 2011
- Thursday, March 03, 2011
- Elder of Ziyon
In my scoop about Hosni Mubarak's vanity pinstripe suit, I had embedded an Arabic video.
MEMRI has now translated that video:
The problem with the Egyptian analysis is that they made it sound like the photo was taken very recently, although I can see from the photo's EXIF information that it was taken in October, 2009.
MEMRI has now translated that video:
The problem with the Egyptian analysis is that they made it sound like the photo was taken very recently, although I can see from the photo's EXIF information that it was taken in October, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
