Tag: Israel

Posted on

Israelis and others bought undocumented diamonds

One of the latest cables released by Wikileaks reveals an illicit trade in Zimbabwean diamonds. The cable, dated 12th November, 2008 states in summary:

The CEO of a British mining company described to us how high-ranking Zimbabwean government officials and well-connected elites are generating millions of dollars in personal income by hiring teams of diggers to hand-extract diamonds from the Chiadzwa mine in eastern Zimbabwe. They are selling the undocumented diamonds to a mix of foreign buyers including Belgians, Israelis, Lebanese, Russians and South Africans who smuggle them out of the country for cutting and resale elsewhere. Despite efforts to control the diamond site with police, the prospect of accessible diamonds lying just beneath the soil’s surface has attracted a swarm of several thousand local and foreign diggers. The police response has been violent, with a handful of homicides reported each week, though that number could grow as diggers arm themselves and attract police and army deserters to their ranks.

Further, the cable says:

¶7. (C) The diamonds that are not sold to regime members and elites, but instead are sold directly to foreign buyers, actually constitute the majority of the diamond trade in Chiadzwa. Cranswick said that around 85 percent of the diamonds extracted from Chiadzwa are sold directly to foreign buyers. Even so, he conservatively estimated that Mujuru, Gono and the rest were probably each making several hundred thousand dollars a month.

¶8. (C) Whether bought first by regime members or not, eventually the diamonds are sold to a mix of Belgians, Israelis, Lebanese (the largest contingent), Russians, and South Africans. A well-known buyer named Gonyeti fronts for Gono, as do two other buyers named Tendai Makurumidze and Takunda Nyaguze, according to Mutasa. Once sold to foreigners, the majority of the diamonds are smuggled to Dubai and sold at the Dubai Multi Commodities Centre Authority, a dedicated economic free-trade zone created in 2002 for the exchange of metals and commodities, most notably gold and diamonds. Although Zimbabwe is a participant in the Kimberley process, the diamonds from Chiadzwa are undocumented and therefore are not in compliance with Kimberley, which requires loose uncut diamonds to be certified.

¶9. (C) The highest quality diamonds are not sent to Dubai, but are shipped to Belgium, Israel, or South Africa for cutting. Despite this wide dispersal, Chiadzwa diamonds are very distinctive because of their age, color, and clarity and can easily be traced back to the Marange mine, according to Cranswick. He implicated Ernie Blom, president of South Africa’s Diamond Merchants Association in the illicit trade of Chiadzwa diamonds, and said that Blom had been known to boast of his involvement in illegal Zimbabwean diamonds. When asked why purportedly reputable diamond dealers would involve themselves in Chiadzwa, Cranswick said that the site was “massive” with tremendous profit potential that was attracting numerous buyers. One such group consisted of Russians who had recently bought US$500,000 worth of diamonds at an MMCZ auction, paying US$29/carat. They bought eight to ten carat rough diamonds, five to ten percent of which were gem quality.

¶10. (C) The diamond frenzy in Chiadzwa has led to hundreds and possibly thousands of homicides. Word of easy diamonds spurred a rush of Zimbabwean and foreign diggers to the area including Angolans, Congolese, Mozambicans, South Africans and Zambians, as well as diggers from as far away as Sierra

Yesterday a Swiss group urged Bern to bar sale of Marange diamonds from Zimbabwe.

The organization said the definition of “blood diamonds” used by the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme should be updated to include human rights violations by forces of the state. The present definition refers to rebel forces, a loophole that has allowed Harare to market Marange diamonds internationally under Kimberley supervision.

The Zimbabwe Advocacy Office, local partner of Bread For All, reports ongoing rights violations in the Marange diamond field of Manicaland province.

Diamonds from Marange are currently barred from export until the Kimberly Process has achieved a consensus on the disposition of the Zimbabwean stones. The organization met in Israel last month but was unable to reach a consensus on Marange gems.

Zimbabwean Mines Minister Obert Mpofu has threatened to sell diamonds with or without Kimberley approval, saying Zimbabwe has met all of the group’s requirements.

But political analyst Charles Mangongera said Harare must first address human rights abuses in Marange and completely demilitarize the zone, among other outstanding items in a work plan to which it agreed at a 2009 Kimberley Process meeting.

Israel is currently chairs the Kimberley Process. A boycott of Israeli cut diamonds has been called as Israeli diamonds cannot be regarded as conflict-free while Israel maintains its illegal apartheid, crimes against humanity, occupation and brutalisation of the people of Palestine.

Most people are unaware that the majority of diamonds on display in Jewellers’ windows are likely to have been manufactured in apartheid Israel and that their purchase helps to fund Israel’s illegal occupation and Zionist crimes against humanity. Israeli diamonds are de facto Blood Diamonds.

Significant revenues from corporation and personal taxes accrue to the Israeli state form the diamond industry each year. This helps to fund the 60 year long illegal occupation of Palestinian territory and associated crimes including murder, ethnic cleansing, home demolitions, destruction and theft of land and collective punishment of the Palestinian people.

Boycott Israeli Diamonds

The UN-based Kimberley Process which seeks to eliminate the trade in diamonds from conflict zones only applies to uncut or rough diamonds. It does not control to trade in polished diamonds from conflict zones. This has allowed jewellers to continue selling Israeli diamonds, conveniently ignoring the war crimes and crimes against humanity being committed by Israel, the world’s No1 producer of cut and polished diamonds.

Consumers and jewellers presently have no way of distinguishing which diamonds are cut and polished in Israeli and which are crafted in countries that respect human rights and international law. Consumers have a right to know not only where the diamond was mined (as certified by the Kimberley Process) but also the country where it was cut and polished.

The Indian government has placed a ban on Zimbabwean diamonds.

The Indian Government’s Union Ministry of Commerce has moved to stop its country from importing controversial diamonds from Zimbabwe, amid growing pressure for international traders to shun stones from the country. Indian has asked jewellery exporters and traders to bide their time until a solution of Zimbabwe’s trade future is resolved. Currently Zimbabwe’s diamonds are still effectively barred from international trade, because the watchdog Kimberley Process (KP) is still to decide on whether to give Zimbabwean exports the green light.

The Indian government’s decision is a major setback to the country’s diamond conglomerate, the Surat Rough Diamond Sourcing India Limited (SRSDIL), which signed a deal amounting to US$1.2 billion per year, to import rough diamonds from Zimbabwe. Recent diamond auctions in Zimbabwe, the first since the country was barred from trade last year, saw a high number of Indian buyers. Zimbabwe was barred by the KP over human rights abuses at the Chiadzwa alluvial diamond fields, and the auctions earlier this year were part of efforts to bring the country in line with international standards. But the KP has not made a unanimous decision on Zimbabwe yet, because of ongoing reports of abuses at Chiadzwa.

The Mines Ministry has since threatened to sell its diamonds without KP approval and recently the KP appointed monitor to Zimbabwe, Abbey Chikane, unilaterally certified Chiadzwa stones for sale. As a result, another auction, featuring mainly Indian buyers, went ahead last month. The KP has since publicly dismissed Chikane’s efforts to certify the stones without approval, and has asked member state not accepted Zimbabwean diamonds.

The KP is still reportedly negotiating an agreement with the Mines Ministry, which continues to make it clear that it has no intention of adhering to the KP’s limits. Mines and Mining Development secretary Thankful Musukutwa reportedly told a visiting Norwegian delegation this week that trade would not be stopped by NGOs and “other hostile nations.” Musukutwa said that while Zimbabwe has had “a few problems” with the KP, “we have worked our way up and we are very compliant.”

A Kimberley Process meeting in Israel in November failed to allow the export of Zimbabwean diamonds until they become process-compliant.

Talks to break an international deadlock over Zimbabwe’s suspended diamond exports ended in Belgium last week without a deal as the market was awash with rumours that Harare was courting buyers for stones from its controversial fields to the east of the country.

Industry representatives failed to hammer a compromise deal after a special meeting of the Kimberley Process (KP)’s Working Group on Monitoring (WGM) ended in Brussels on Thursday with no consensus on whether to allow rough diamond exports from Zimbabwe.

The Brussels meeting followed a KP plenary session held earlier this month in Israel which nearly reached an agreement after direct consultations between the United States and Zimbabwe. The agreement was widely accepted by KP members but was blocked by Canada and Australia. The Tel Aviv meetings ended with a decision to continue negotiations until a unanimous agreement is reached.

Zimbabwe boycotted the WGM meeting although it was said to be liaising with the working group via a delegation from neighbouring countries. Harare has insisted that it would resume selling the gems “without any conditions”. Under a set of measures meant to bring Zimbabwe’s controversial diamond industry in line with KP standards, the world diamond industry must monitor production and sales of diamonds from Chiadzwa field where the army has been accused of rights abuses against civilians.

In a later cable of the 9th January, 2009, we see:

¶7. (C) While Gono’s access to diamonds may have been compromised, XXXXXXXXXXXX said that many diamonds are still being sold to foreign diamond buyers in Mutare and over the border in Mozambique by a mix of panners, police, and soldiers. In particular, Lebanese buyers have set up shop in large numbers in Mutare and typically pay for the diamonds with U.S. dollars. In order to operate safely, the Lebanese have formed profitable relationships with senior military and police officials in the region. Marginally more reputable buyers from Europe and other regions prefer to stay in Chimoio in Mozambique. Chimoio affords these buyers protection from Zimbabwean police and soldiers who commonly seize cash, diamonds, and vehicles from them in Mutare, but that safety is offset by higher diamond prices.

Ask where your diamond was cut and sourced before buying – don’t buy Israeli blood diamonds.

Related Links
Court asked to prevent Chiadzwa diamond exports
CORE MINING EXEC. CLAIMS $80 MILLION OF ROUGH DIAMONDS MISSING FROM CANADILE STOCK
Zimbabwe Finance Minister Calls for Valuation of Diamond Deposits
Zimbabwe Govt Newspaper: Diamond Mining Company Contests Exclusion From Chiadzwa

Posted on

Reports, Reports, Reports

(1) DSCA Releases FY2010 Sales Figures

US military sales overseen by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) topped $30 billion for the third consecutive year. Total sales for fiscal year 2010 were $31.6 billion. Sales under the government-to-government sales program called Foreign Military Sales (FMS) were $25.2 billion. Non-FMS security cooperation cases managed by DSCA under various security cooperation authorities were $6.4 billion.

The DoD program for support of Afghanistan’s security forces using the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF) made up the majority of non-FMS security cooperation cases in fiscal year 2010 and totaled some $4.7 billion. This reflected continued support to the Government of Afghanistan in its fight against the Taliban and other insurgent forces. This ASFF-funded support was for training and equipping of the
Afghanistan National Security Forces. Non-FMS security cooperation cases also provided support to other foreign governments, including Iraq and Pakistan.

The Government of Israel at $4.0 billion led the FMS customer list with the highest value in sales followed by the Government of Egypt at $2.6 billion. Israel and Egypt are also the largest recipients of Foreign Military Financing (FMF) funds appropriated by Congress through the State Department to be used to pay for purchases of U.S. defense articles and services. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia at $2.5 billion and the Government of the United Kingdom at $1.8 billion rounded out the top four FMS customers in terms of the value of sales.

(2) 2009 Human Rights Report: Israel and the occupied territories

The 1967 Protection of Holy Sites Law protects all holy sites, but the government implemented regulations only for 137 Jewish sites, leaving Muslim and Christian sites neglected, inaccessible, or threatened by property development. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre and other well-known sites have de facto protection as a result of their international importance; however, community mosques, churches, and shrines faced threats from developers and municipalities that Jewish sites did not face. Christian pilgrimage sites around the Sea of Galilee faced regular threats of encroachment from government planners who wanted to use parts of the properties for recreational areas. The law provides for a hearing of objections to any plan or construction, including submissions by representative bodies such as the NGO Arab Center for Alternative Planning.

On March 16, the Supreme Court rejected Adalah’s 2004 petition requesting that the government promulgate regulations for the protection of Islamic holy sites. The government maintained that the promulgation of specific regulations, including determining how to expand the list of holy sites, was not necessary to preserve and protect the holy sites of any religion since the law provided for the protection of all holy sites of all religions.

(3) The 2010 Israeli Democracy Index: Democratic Values in Practice

Some of the findings:

  • Israel’s high incarceration rate, combined with inadequacies in the rule of law, cause it to fall short of the accepted standard in Western countries.
  • 60% of the population in Israel thinks that a few strong leaders would be better for Israel than all the democratic debates and legislation. 59% of that same group would prefer a government of experts who make decisions based on professional rather than political considerations.
  • 86% of the Jewish public (76% of the total population) thinks that critical decisions for the state should be made by the Jewish majority.
  • 53% of the Jewish public also believe that the State is entitled to encourage the emigration of Arabs.
  • 70% of Israel’s population thinks that there is no justification whatsoever for using violence in order to achieve political goals.
  • 81% of the population agrees with the assertion that “democracy is not a perfect regime, but it is better than any other form of government.” However, 55% of the public believes that Israel should put observing the law and public order before the ideals of democracy. Of the Jewish respondents, 60% of those on the political right supported this idea compared with 50% of those in the center and 49% of those on the left.
  • 54%, slightly more than half the general population in Israel today, state that they have full or partial confidence in the Supreme Court, compared with 44% who claim that they have no confidence in it at all.
  • Only 41% of respondents said that they have full or partial confidence in the police force.
  • 72% of the population say that they do not trust the political parties, although a 63% majority oppose the view that parties are no longer needed and should therefore be abolished.
  • Compared with 45% of Arab respondents, 69% of the Jewish population claims that the constitution is important to them.
  • 43% of the general population feels that it is equally important for Israel to be a Jewish and democratic country, while 31% regards the Jewish component as being more important, and only 20% defines the democratic element as being more important.
  • 41% of the population believes that freedom of religion and speech are implemented adequately; however, 39% believe that human rights are not sufficiently implemented.
  • 72% of the general public thinks that Israel’s democracy is adversely affected by the increase in socio-economic gaps.
  • 54% of the Jewish public opposes the view that legislation should be passed penalizing anyone who speaks out against Zionism.
  • 50% of the Jewish respondents agree that it is important to allow non-Zionist political parties to participate in elections.
  • 56% of veteran Israelis agree that people who have refused to serve in the IDF should not be allowed to vote or stand in elections. 62% of immigrants from the FSU disagree with this, while 76% of the ultra-Orthodox public rejects the idea.
  • 51% of the general public approves of equality of rights between Jews and Arabs. The more Orthodox the group, the greater the opposition to equal rights between Jews and Arabs: only 33.5% of secular Jews oppose this, compared with 51% of traditional Jews, 65% of Orthodox Jews and 72% of ultra-Orthodox Jews.
  • 67% of the Jewish public believe that close relatives of Arabs should not be permitted to enter Israel under of the rubric of family unification.
  • Almost two-thirds (62%) of Jews believe that as long as Israel is in conflict with the Palestinians, the views of Arab citizens of Israel on foreign policy and security matters should not be taken into consideration.
  • 51.5% of the Jewish sample agrees that only immigrants who are Jewish as defined by Halakha should be entitled to receive Israeli citizenship automatically, while only 34.5% of immigrants from the FSU agree with it. By segmentation, 41% of secular Jews and 88% of ultra-Orthodox agree, while traditional Jews and Orthodox Jews fall in the middle, with 63% and 79% respectively.
  • 55% of the general public thinks that more resources should be allocated to Jewish municipalities than to Arab municipalities, while a 42% minority disagrees with this statement.
  • Within the Jewish public, 71% of right-wing supporters agree that more resources should be allocated to Jewish municipalities than to Arab municipalities, as compared to 46% of centrists and 38% of leftists. When segmented by degree of religious observance, 51% of ultra-Orthodox Jews agree with the statement, while 45% of Orthodox Jews, 28% of traditional Jews, and 18% of secular Jews agree with it.
  • 39% of the general population supports equal funding of religious services while 35% oppose it. Taking only the Jewish population into account, 41% support equal funding of religious services, while 33% oppose it.
  • 54% of the general population supports equal funding of schools, while 26% oppose it.
  • 46% of the Jewish public admitted to being most bothered by the possibility of having Arabs as neighbors. This was followed equally by people with mental illness being treated in the community and foreign workers (39% each). 25% would be bothered by same-sex couples, 23% by ultra-Orthodox Jews, 17% by Ethiopian immigrants, 10% by non-Sabbath observers, and 8% by immigrants from the Former Soviet Union.
  • The Arab public is less tolerant than Jews of neighbors who are “Other.” 70% thought the least desirable neighbors would be same-sex couples and 67% were opposed to having ultra-Orthodox Jews as neighbors, followed closely by 65% who would be opposed to former settlers. 48% answered that the most “tolerable” neighbors would be foreign workers.
Posted on

NGO Monitor – Watching the Watchers Redux

The Israeli hasbara organisation, NGO Monitor, has taken foul, unsubstantiated swipes at Electronic Intifada and its co-founder Ali Abunimah.

NGO Monitor’s International Advisory Board consists of:

Elie Wiesel
Professor Alan Dershowitz
Fiamma Nirenstein
Elliott Abrams
Amb. Yehuda Avner
Tom Gross
Col. Richard Kemp
Douglas Murray
Judea Pearl
Judge Abraham Sofaer
Ruth Wisse
R. James Woolsey

Several of these individuals have cross-over links with US neocon and pro-Israel establishments. Click on highlighted names to find out these people’s associations and in which organisations they are involved. Some of these include the Committee on the Present Danger, Avi Chai Foundation, JINSA, Koret Foundation and the Hoover Institution. The Koret Foundation is also a major donor to NGO Monitor.

As noted in October 09, one of NGO Monitor’s co-sponsors is the Wechsler Foundation, a non-profit [sic], tax-exempt US organisation, which, along with other US-based sponsors, pad NGO Monitor with US taxpayer funds to undermine the work of peace organisations in Israel and Palestine, and the independent journalism represented by Electronic Intifada, in the interests of the Israeli and US economic elite.

Another of NGO Monitor’s major funders is the United Jewish Communities, which was formed from the 1999 merger of United Jewish Appeal (UJA), Council of Jewish Federations and United Israel Appeal, Inc and the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA), which partners with the Jewish Agency in Israel.

From the JFNA site:

United Israel Appeal (UIA), as part of The Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA), is a principal link between the American Jewish community and the people of Israel. An independent legal entity, UIA is responsible for the distribution and oversight of funds raised by U.S. Federation campaigns on behalf of Israel for use by its operating agent, the Jewish Agency for Israel, and for securing and monitoring funds for the immigration and absorption of Jewish refugees and humanitarian migrants to Israel from countries of distress. It is with the Jewish Agency as our partner, that UIA assists American Jews to fulfill their ongoing collective commitment to contribute to and participate in the upbuilding of the Jewish State of Israel.

Further:

UIA allocates and monitors funds raised by Federation campaigns in the U.S. for UIA’s operating agent JAFI, Israeli NGO’s and the over 1000 physical projects constructed in Israel with funds from U.S. donors.

As recounted on this blog several days ago, the Israel-based parent body of the United Israel Appeal, Keren Hayesod, sealed a deal with the Israeli government in October 2010.

‘Leading the projects that Keren Hayesod will support is Prime Minister’s Office project regarding national heritage sites. Keren Hayesod has taken it upon itself to raise funds in order to supplement the Government budget and expand the scope of the project.’.

On February 21, 2010, Netanyahu presented a Cabinet Communique outlining earmark funding of the ‘national’ heritage project.

The list of sites submitted here is neither closed nor final. It can and will certainly include other sites. I also intend to include Rachel’s Tomb, to the rehabilitation of which the Jewish Agency has allocated NIS 20 million, and the Tomb of the Patriarchs. Since I was asked, I would like to make my intentions clear, and this is what will be.

UNESCO recently insisted that Israel remove the Cave of the Patriachs and Rachel’s Tomb, both located in the Palestinian West Bank, from its list of national heritage sites as they are sites of mosques. Abbas and Haniyeh have also requested the sites be removed from Netanyahu’s proposed national heritage trail. Netanyahu has refused to do so.

In essence, US taxpayer money is diverted through Israeli front organisations in the US, which also fund NGO Monitor, to illegal Israeli government projects in the Occupied Territories.

You can donate to worthy online journalism at Electronic Intifada here.

UPDATE

Haaretz journalist doubles as anti-“delegitimization” operative

Haaretz has an international reputation as Israel’s most liberal and reliable newspaper. But The Electronic Intifada has discovered that one of the newspaper’s regularly-featured reporters, Cnaan Liphshiz, used his news reports for the publication to promote the agenda of an extreme pro-Israel group with which he was also employed.

At the same time, Liphshiz appears to have made efforts to conceal his work with the Dutch Zionist group CIDI (Centre for Documentation and Information on Israel), an undisclosed conflict of interest which calls into question the reliability of his reports and the editorial standards of Haaretz.

From 2007 until the present, Liphshiz has written about 50 articles in Haaretz which quote information provided by CIDI or its executive director Ronny Naftaniel, usually without offering any countervailing opinion or sources. Many of Liphshiz’s stories are based entirely on information provided by CIDI.

CIDI has confirmed to The Electronic Intifada that Lipshiz worked for the organization, and is likely to work for them again in the future.

CIDI has earned a reputation as one of the staunchest advocates for Israel in the Netherlands, launching stinging personal attacks and smears on public figures and groups who dare to call on Israel to respect human rights. In an article for The Electronic Intifada, Stan van Houcke, a Dutch journalist and author, described CIDI as an organization whose main goal is to cover up Israel’s violations of international law (“Dutch ‘research’ group covers for Israeli crimes,” violations, 5 November 2007).

UPDATE 10/2/12

What can public records tell us about NGO Monitor’s funding sources?

Posted on

Cablegate, Israel and Palestine

In his archived blog, Julian Assange describes the History of Warfare:

The history of warfare is similarly subdivided, although here the phases are Retribution, Anticipation, and Diplomacy. Thus:

Retribution:

I’m going to kill you because you killed my brother.

Anticipation:

I’m going to kill you because I killed your brother.

Diplomacy:

I’m going to kill my brother and then kill you on the pretext that your brother did it.

Piquant, prophetic words in the light of the bloodletting proceeding the release of the first tranche of US diplomatic cables these are proving to be. The exercise of the serpentine craft of diplomacy will never be quite the same – after all, the US, who used its diplomats to spy upon their brethren, including in the UN, has been caught en flagrante. One would like to say one’s world view has been changed by the cables’ release, yet it hasn’t, it has been vindicated – global affairs managed by the hegemon are predicated on rewarding injustice, kleptocracy, avarice and sycophantic cowardice with arms sales and pandering, maintaining geostrategic imbalances which profit elites.

With the US baying for blood and Sweden in pursuit over charges claimed to be false by his lawyer, Julian Assange is now one of the most wanted men on the planet. Ecuador alone has offered him sanctuary, though now apparently withdrawn.

Here’s some significant cables of interest and news stories about the cables concerning Israel and Palestine.

Cables:

What Israel fears – truth and justice:

On 16 Nov 09, Israel and the US collude over follow up to the Goldstone Report.

DG Buchris also compared Israeli operations in Gaza to U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and stated that Israel would do whatever was necessary to protect its population. In response, ASD Vershbow recalled U.S. support for Israel in handling of the Goldstone report, and offered to share U.S. experience in investigating incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan as the GOI considered whether to conduct an additional investigation.

In the same cable,

Amos Gilad acknowledged the sometimes difficult position the U.S. finds itself in given its global interests, and conceded that Israel’s security focus is so narrow that its QME concerns often clash with broader American security interests in the region.

Two days later, there’s a hush up of US bunker busting bombs delivery to Israel along with other qualitative military edge revelations (18 Nov 09)

The Goldstone Report is a key threat (Dec 09)

‘Netanyahu commented that Israel currently faces three principal threats: Iran’s nuclear program, missile proliferation and the Goldstone Report.’

Netanyahu lies about Arab “Street” support for overthrow of Iran (really only 10% think Iran is a danger), indicates Israel’s ‘support’ of the PA and conflation of ‘peace’ with Iran’s supposed ambitions, (Dec09)

¶5. (C) Netanyahu said the West Bank had remained quiet during Operation Cast Lead because the Palestinians do not want to live under Hamas’ rule. He asserted that according to recent polls, Abu Mazen and Fatah would easily win an election, even in Gaza. Netanyahu stressed that he was not pushing for the Palestinians to hold elections, but was instead focused on promoting the expansion of the West Bank economy by removing both physical and bureaucratic obstacles. He acknowledged that the PA is “doing a good job” on security, though he added that PA leaders are not aware of everything Israel is doing to support the PA’s security. If we could add a political process to the cooperation that currently exists, we could get security, economic development, and peace. Netanyahu warned, however, that if Iran gets a nuclear bomb, the peace process would be “washed away.” Even Israel’s peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan would come under enormous pressure.

…

¶7. (C) Representative Israel asked Netanyahu about the timetable for Iran to achieve a nuclear weapon. Netanyahu responded that Iran has the capability now to make one bomb or they could wait and make several bombs in a year or two. It is important to bear in mind that the Iranian regime was exposed as a fraud during their presidential elections. The Iranian people detest the regime and have shown great courage
in the streets. The exposure of the Qom facility also helped convince doubters in the international community that Iran has a weapons program. Iran has a weak economy and a fractured political system, so it is vulnerable to sanctions. The time to act diplomatically is now, Netanyahu said, adding that we still have a year or two to stop the Iranian program. Netanyahu said he thought President Obama understands Iran perfectly. The Arab leaders hope Iran will be stopped, there is broad Arab and European support for “vigorous steps.” Chairman Skelton asked whether the Arabs would state their support publicly. Netanyahu replied they might not, but it would not make a large difference since the Arab “street” will not rise up in support of the Iranian regime.

Egyptian complicity with fostering collaborator PA – brief to Petraeus (July 09)

Soliman explained that Egypt’s three primary objectives with the Palestinians were to maintain calm in Gaza, undermine Hamas, and build popular support for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. On Gaza, Soliman said Egypt worked closely with Israel to coordinate humanitarian assistance shipments and was encouraging the Israelis to allow more assistance into Gaza. Soliman said he was still seeking a “tahdiya” (calm) agreement between Hamas and Israel, but noted that Israel’s lack of a Gaza strategy and desire to keep Hamas under pressure made any agreement difficult.

US National HUMINT Collection Directive for spying on ‘views, plans and tactics of the Palestinian Authority,
including its representative to the UN, to gain support in the UNSC, UNGA, or UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) for its strategies and positions on Palestinian-Israeli issues, including from Russia and EU countries, especially France, Germany, and UK; views of Secretary General,s Special Envoy and UNSC on possible settlement of the Shab’a Farms dispute to include Syria/Lebanon border demarcation; Secretariat views regarding water management as part of the Middle East Peace Process, including domestic and regional competition for allocation; Quartet views on Syria’s policies and approach toward Israel and Palestinians and on Syrian motives behind and efforts to subvert or support Israeli-Palestinian negotiations; UN efforts to influence negotiating positions on territorial boundaries, water resources and management, and right of return; views, plans and tactics of HAMAS to gain support in the UNSC or UNGA for its strategies and positions on HAMAS-Israeli issues, and on HAMAS-Palestinian Authority issues, including from Russia, China, Iran, and EU countries, especially France, Germany, and the UK; Information on UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) activities in Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and the West Bank, and its relations with HAMAS/Hizballah; Plans and intentions of member states to support/oppose US priority to reduce the number of Middle East resolutions’. (July 09)

As the Guardian affirms, “Humint is part of the CIA, which deals with overseas spying overseas and is one of at least 12 US intelligence agencies.”

US State biographic reporting on Palestinians (Oct 08)

More posturing:

Lieberman tells Russia Israel was not intending to attack Iran while Russian Lavrov tells Lieberman the US attack of Iraq was ‘a “present” to Iran (June 09)

“Qatari diplomats.. had to cross through Israel – Egypt would not allow them to enter Gaza from Rafah” (Mar 09)

“Netanyahu insisted not one [Palestinian] refugee could ever return” (Apr 07)

“Only Israeli military operations against Hamas in the West Bank prevent them from expanding control beyond Gaza, lamented Dagan, without which Fatah would fall within one month and Abbas would join his “mysteriously wealthy” son in Qatar.” (Mar 07)

In June 09,Barak describes Pakistan as his “private nightmare”, urged US to confront Iran – in July 07, Dagan previously saw “a Pakistan ruled by radical Islamists with a nuclear arsenal at their disposal as his biggest nightmare”

In April 09, Netanyahu’s vision of a Palestinian faux statelet – “without the power to enter into treaties” is revealed. He didn’t mention this in his unctuous Bar Ilan speech in June 09, whilst later claiming on 23 December 09 that ‘the Bar Ilan address last June had been difficult for him’.

Netanyahu’s excuse for continuing brutal occupation in April 09 – ‘if Israel withdrew from the West Bank, Hamas would take over’

Throughout the cables, Israel links ‘peace’ with Palestinians with the US confronting Iran repeatedly.

On 23 December 09, Netanyahu affirms this linkage: .

Netanyahu listed steps the GOI has taken to support Abu Mazen, noting that the PA is “doing a good job” on security. A nuclear Iran, however, would “wash away” all progress as well as undermining Israel’s peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan. Netanyahu said that Iran is vulnerable to sanctions and urged the U.S. to increase the pressure on Iran, with like-minded countries if Russia and China will not support new sanctions in the Security Council. Netanyahu commented that there is broader Arab and European support for tough sanctions than in the past, although the Arabs may not say so publicly.

The myth that the “Palestine-Israel question is central” is also peddled by Arab dictatorships to gullible Americans – as long as the so-called peace process is a US priority, Arab regimes will continue their con job. (April 09)

On 13 February, 2010, Qatar’s Amir suggests

“Israelis are also using Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons as a diversion from settling matters with the Palestinians. The historical backdrop of Arab-Persian relations does not help.”

Amir also says

Hamas will accept the 1967 border with Israel, but will not say it publicly so as to lose popular Palestinian support. … Qatar can help move Hamas, because Qatar does not “play in their internal politics.” That does not mean Qatar shares Hamas’ ideology.

Kerry lays down the US terms

Senator Kerry noted that one of the biggest problems for Israel is the potential return of 5-6 million Palestinian refugees. The parties broached the return issue in discussions at Taba and agreed that the right of Palestinian return would be subject to later negotiation, pointed out the Chairman. If we can proceed from that point on the right of return, the Senator believes there is an “artful way” to frame the negotiations on borders, land swaps, and Jerusalem as a shared capital.

In November 09, Gilad suggests Egypt’s role in pushing reconciliation between Hamas and the PA is ‘not helpful and often counterproductive, but that he expects Egypt to continue floating the idea at future junctures.’

Israeli MFA Hadas boasts of Gulf Arabs “They believe Israel can work magic” because of the US special relationship (Mar 09)

Did Sharon’s antagonism and tilt toward Iran in March 2005 trigger a reignition of the Arab dictatorships’ hostility against Iran? Sharon was concerned the US stance would move toward the EU’s.

‘The MFA’s office director for the Gulf states said that Israel would maintain its low-profile diplomatic activities, such as supplying IAEA members with intelligence material related to the Iranian program. She said the MFA believes that any overt Israeli pressure would backfire, leading to a surge of Arab support for Iran and focusing attention on Israel’s own nuclear activities.’ The US embassy noted: “At the same time, we should recognize that Israeli intelligence briefings will understandably focus on worst-case scenarios and may not match current USG assessments.”

Just two months later,

“MbZ [Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed] appeared convinced that it was only a matter of time before Israel or the U.S. would strike Iranian nuclear facility targets. U.S. installations in the Gulf could be targeted by Iran in the aftermath of such an action, he warned. MbZ agreed with the USG,s tough line with Tehran and the Europeans. A nuclear-armed Iran would destabilize the Gulf region and possibly allow terrorist access to WMD. MbZ asked Lt. Gen. Dunn whether it would be possible for anyone to “take out” all locations of concern in Iran via air power; Lt. Gen. Dunn voiced doubt that this would be possible given the dispersed locations. “Then it will take ground forces!” MbZ exclaimed. Ambassador noted that the UAE’s Director of Military Intelligence, BG Essa al Mazrouei, would pay counterpart visits this week to CENTCOM, J-2, DIA, and CIA for discussions on Iran and Iraq-related matters. MbZ said he looked forward to sharing “contingency planning” scenarios in future conversations.”

Years later in April 09 , the UAE is rewarded by Clinton for its services to empire.

The Secretary expressed the Administration’s commitment to the U.S.-UAE Agreement for Cooperation on the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy (aka 123 Agreement). She emphasized that our goal is to get the agreement completed as smoothly as possible. AbZ said that he is delighted with the progress on the agreement. He added that the UAE’s goal is to create a gold standard for a nuclear power program. Then, because of the strong commitments the UAE has made, it will be impossible to have improper use of its nuclear facilities.

¶6. (S) Turning to the need to be prepared to respond to Congress, the Secretary committed to form a State Department committee including H, NEA and ISN to work on the notification. The Secretary noted the importance of implementing the UAE export control law and continued UAE efforts against illicit Iranian trade and Iranian front companies. The Secretary encouraged action on nonproliferation treaty commitments as especially helpful actions the UAE could take to support our efforts. AbZ noted that the UAE would formally join the additional protocol on April 8.

¶7. (S) AbZ agreed that the August 2007 export control law had some “loopholes” and said that the UAE Cabinet “revisited” the issue last week. Otaiba said that AbZ had personally intervened to ensure timely action. Otaiba elaborated that the committee charged with implementing the export control law will have its first meeting later this month to begin operations.

¶8. (S) Otaiba noted that, even in the absence of a formal implementation committee, the UAE is taking action – citing a recent case involving German-made Siemens computers and a Chinese ship bound for Iran interdicted in port in the UAE.

In July 07 : ‘According to Dagan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States all fear Iran, but want someone else “to do the job for them.”‘

Noted that in contradiction to oft-repeated public claims, Mossad chief, Dagan denied the existence of Al Qaeda in the OPT in 05: ‘he feels that most Palestinians are not searching for “foreign flags,” such as al-Qaeda, under which to rally, because those inclined to do so are already being well-mobilized under existing groups in the West Bank and Gaza.’ (Mar 05)

Israel, a Promised Land For Organised Crime (15 May 09) :

Organized crime (OC) has longstanding roots in Israel, but in recent years there has been a sharp increase in the reach and impact of OC networks. In seeking a competitive advantage in such lucrative trades as narcotics and prostitution, Israeli crime groups have demonstrated their ability and willingness to engage in violent attacks on each other with little regard for innocent bystanders. The Israeli National Police (INP) and the courts have engaged in a vigorous campaign against organized crime leaders, including the creation of a new specialized anti-OC unit, but they remain unable to cope with the full scope of the problem. Organized crime in Israel now has global reach, with direct impact inside the United States. Post is currently utilizing all available tools to deny Israeli OC figures access to the United States in order to prevent them from furthering their criminal activities on U.S. soil.

19th Russian property in Jerusalem and the West Bank returned by PA and Israel [my comment: what about return of similar Palestinian property with deeds?] (11 July 08)

xxxxx told us that the return of historically Russian property in the Holy Land was a symbol of Russia’s post-Soviet cultural and religious renaissance. The properties, which had either been abandoned by the USSR or sold to Israel, would be used for facilities for religious pilgrims and tourists, as well as Russian language schools and clinics that would benefit local residents, including the large number of Russian-speaking Israelis.

…

The MFA was also considering establishing a consulate at the compound in Jerusalem.xxxxx said that at present Russia had only its Embassy in Tel Aviv and a small Mission in Ramallah to handle relations
with the PA. A presence in Jerusalem would help provide assistance to the many Russian citizens living in Israel as well as Russian tourists, whose numbers, presently estimated at 200,000 per year, were expected to grow significantly after the Russian-Israeli agreement to end visa requirements became operative in September.

Is this consular presence a toehold for future duplicitous assertion by Israel of Jerusalem as its capital?

Israeli is annoyed with the loss of influence of the military in Turkey (Nov 09)

News Stories:

Haaretz: WikiLeaks exposé: Israel tried to coordinate Gaza war with Abbas

Israel consulted Egypt, Fatah on Gaza war: WikiLeaks

Israel asked PA to retake Gaza after war – Ma’an News Agency

In Haaretz, Abbas denies he was informed about the Cast Lead attack.

Juan Cole on Israel’s racist moan about its jewish majority demographics being endangered by the threat of Iran which Israel itself beats up.

Richard Silverstein picks up several more revelations about Israel’s posturing and maleficence toward Palestinians from the cables.

Antoun Issa: Understanding Wikileaks

Robert Fisk: Now we know. America really doesn’t care about injustice in the Middle East. Fisk picks up on Netanyahu’s demonical concept of a bantustan Palestinian state mentioned above:

There’s a wonderful moment in the cables when the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, explains to a US congressional delegation on 28 April last year that “a Palestinian state must be demilitarised, without control of its airspace and electro-magnetic field [sic], and without the power to enter into treaties or control its border”. Well goodbye, then, to the “viable” (ergo Lord Blair of Isfahan) Palestinian state we all supposedly want. And the US Congress lads and ladies appear to have said nothing.

Woolly Days: Wikileaks cable reveals Syria’s price for US support

Democracy Now: U.S. Facing Global Diplomatic Crisis Following Massive WikiLeaks Release of Secret Diplomatic Cables Vid and transcript with ‘a roundtable discussion with Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg; Greg Mitchell, who writes the Media Fix blog at The Nation; Carne Ross, a British diplomat for 15 years who resigned before the Iraq war; and As’ad AbuKhalil, a professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus.’

Jeff Sparrow on The Drum:

But when it comes to governments, the old adage is spot on. With the WikiLeaks cables, we’re not discussing personal modesty. We’re talking about decisions with real implications for a world we all have to live in.

No-one wants to see Robert Gibbs naked. But, however embarrassing the US spokespeople might find it, WikiLeaks’s enhanced pat-down is a good thing for democracy.

There’s some junk that just needs to be touched.

Maan Newsagency: Germany urged US to threaten Israel with UN vote:

Two weeks before Israel froze most settlement construction in November 2009, a senior German official urged the US to threaten Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with diplomatic pressure.

German National Security Adviser Christoph Heusgen suggested that if Netanyahu did not agree to a moratorium, Washington could withdraw its support for blocking a vote on Richard Goldstone’s UN fact-finding mission report at the UN Security Council, US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks say.

Haaretz: The chief of Pakistan’s spy agency said he had contacted Israeli officials to head off potential attacks on Israeli targets in India, according to an October 2009 U.S. diplomatic cable.

Pasha asked Ambassador to convey to Washington that he had followed up on threat information that an attack would be launched against India between September-November. He had been in direct touch with the Israelis on possible threats against Israeli targets in India.

Antony Loewenstein Unleashed : Where’s the media’s backbone over WikiLeaks?

Assange makes no secret of wanting to harm the image of the US and lessen American power. Indeed, in an interview this week with America’s ABC he said that Washington simply wasn’t credible when they claimed the release of documents would hurt individuals.

“US officials have for 50 years trotted out this line when they are afraid the public is going to see how they really behave”, Assange said.

James Petras: Wikileaks, Corea del Norte y atentados en Irán

Cable Searching Tools:

CableSearch Beta

No-Longer Secret US Embassy Cables