In a move that will be reminding many Israelis of the kidnapping of Cpl. Gilad Shalit by Hizbollah (the trigger that forced Israel to tackle Hizbollah head on last summer) Iran (Hizbollah's state funders) yesterday kidnapped 15 British sailors (one a women) who were on an united nations aproved mission looking for smugglers off the coast of Iraq.

Iran has said the kidnapped sailors are being interrogated in Tehran. An Iranian General was quoted as saying the sailors had confessed under interrogation to "aggression into the Islamic Republic of Iran waters". One wonders what sort of "interrogation" this was.

Both the UK and the EU have demanded the sailors immediate release. It is thought Iran may be trying similar moves with the UK (to try tempt their opposition to Iran's nuclear program) as they did with Israel. This did not work with Israel and is very unlikely to work with the UK. If anything the move could strengthen Europes resolve against Iran. The British like to be "impartial" observers, claiming everyone is equally to blame in any situation. Under attack themselves this "impartiality" will not last long.

Hamas Still Seeks Israel's Destruction

-

Hamas reiterated its committment to Israel's destruction after being criticized by Al-Qaeda's number 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahri. He accused Hamas on Sunday of serving U.S. interests by agreeing to respect past Palestinian accords, abandoning their tradition of suicide bombings for political expediency. "They have ditched the movement of martyrdom operations...for a government that plays with words in palace halls," said Zawahri. To reassure him-and the world-that they have not 'sold out' by agreeing to a Saudi-brokered unity government deal with Fatah, Hamas said it continued to be a "movement of resistance, seekers of martyrdom" and that its "principles will never be changed". "We will not betray promises we made to God to continue the path of Jihad and resistance until the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine," Hamas said in a statement.
Well, at least Hamas is not shy about making public pronouncements about their true goals, unlike the late Yassir Arafat, who was more coy in his duplicitiousness.
brumspeak

Below we provide some comments and quotes from John Sawers, the Political Director at the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, given in testimony on the first of February 2007 before the select committee on Europe as part of enquiries into the EU and the Middle East Peace Process. The comments are ours. You can also read the full transcript (proof version).

Mr Sawers: "The international community is not going to be able to cooperate and work with a Palestinian government that is not committed to renouncing violence, recognising Israel and upholding previous commitments, including the road map commitments."

It is good to see this position being held firm.

Mr Sawers: "On the borders there will have to be some compensation between the two sides if land which was Palestinian before 1967 is incorporated into the state of Israel"

As an expert it's quite disappointing that Mr Sawers would make a blunder like that. As he's well aware the 1967 border is about a border between Israel and Jordan. Before 1967 the land was Occupied by Jordan. At no point was there Palestinian land. Mr Sawer is advsised to check any library, or indeed his own department's records on this fact.

On a historic note, the Zionists bought land from private land holders during the Otterman Empire's rule. They bought more during the British Mandate. Public lands became part of Israel when passed to them by the UN as the Mandate expired. This is how the 1948 land was aquired by Israel. Jordan (along with other Arab countries) invaded Israel just as it was created and sought to wipe it off the map (something the Iran President also has high on his "top ten things to do when I'm bored" list), after the war Jordan ended up occupying Jerusalem, the Gaza strip and other areas of the former British Mandate. Jews were nto allowed to visit their holy sites. The Jordanians did not create a Palestinian state, and no one complained. When they tried again to destroy Israel in 1967, Israel rather than them captured territory. The land which last (in an unoccupied state) belonged to the British (though they also conquered it in war - so perhaps it was occupied) is yet to be formally allocated and have definitive borders drawn across it. More on this at Wikipedia.

Mr Sawers: "What we want is for Hamas to recognise the reality of the state of Israel and to remove from its lexicon its commitment to the destruction of the state of Israel, and that strikes me as a reasonable thing to ask of a negotiating partner."

You must love the British sense of balance. Imagine a sheep and a wolf negotiating how they will live as good neighbours. The sheep asks not to be eaten, the British reply is that this is a reasonable thing to ask fo a partner, now... what does the wolf want? The only problem with this analogy is that Israel not ready to disarm itself to being in the position of that sheep. The British must realise this. Agreeing to Israel's right to exist is not the concession made to Israel in negotiation... it is the pre-negotiation starting point. The international community at the moment has this right.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: "We learned, for example, from the IMF in 2003 that $900 million passed into the 25 private coffers of the Palestinian leadership... have the lessons been learned in relation to the total misuse of EU taxpayers’ money over the earlier period?"

Mr Sawers: "...I think there is a very strong feeling within the EU that funds in the past have either been abused and wasted or have occasionally have been
used, for example, to fund projects which have later been destroyed by the Israelis."

One would have thought that $900 million stole by Palestinian officials would have been the signifiance point, or the money used for terrorist infrastructure, but no it all comes back to those Israel. Note the lack of mention of what was destroyed or why.

Mr Sawers: "as we saw last summer in the conflict in the Lebanon, an Iranian armed group in the Arab world can set back the prospects for peace and for stability very severely."

Mr Sawers: "When you visit Israel or, indeed, the Arab world, one
of the greatest concerns – possibly in Israel the greatest concern – is not Palestinian, Syria or the Arab world generally, it is Iran. The activities of Iran in supporting extremist groups in Arab countries – in the Lebanon, in Iraq, as we have seen – has raised the level of concern about Iranian activities and certainly has raised the impact of the nuclear file and the implications for the Arab world and the Middle East as a whole should Iran succeed in acquiring nuclear weapons technology or, worse still, nuclear weapons themselves. The rhetoric of President Ahmandinejad is one thing: we cannot ignore it; is it very damaging; and it certainly would be wrong to assume that it is does not carry some meaning. I think it has raised again the concern that Israel’s very existence could be brought into question by enemies in the region – a prospect which really has not been there for much of the last 35 years but was very much there in the early years of Israel’s existence."

I wonder what effect the Iranian threat is having on British Foreign policy? It's good that it is recognise, but where is the seperate report into this threat?

Mr Sawers: "What we face now is an Iran which is posing an increasing threat to the security of the region and which is causing particular security concerns for the State of Israel because of its support for terrorist groups and because of its aspirations, as we see them, to develop nuclear weapons."

Iran is suporting terrorism - in black and white. So what is being done about it?

Mr Sawers: "Obviously it would be much better if we had an Iranian leadership which was committed to a two-State solution, which was committed to countering terrorist groups and was not causing instability in the region, but that is not what we have got, and we have to deal with the Iran which presents itself."

I think we call that British Diplomacy.

Mean time the committee stopped recieving written submissions on the 5th of March. Apparently many Palestinian NGOs put in submissions, and supports of Israel all heard about the deadline after it closed. At least that's what we've heard. We'll see what the final report looks like before making any judgement.

Tags:

Middle East,
Israel news,
Zionism

Hamas recently declared on their website that the ceasefire with Israel was beign called off.

With rockets raining daily on Israeli cities in the south you might ask "what ceasefire?" yet the news could signal greater efforts by Hamas to attack Israeli civilians in anyway they can. Hamas is desperate for a war. Only a war can make their "no negotiations, no peace" position seem sane. With Israel having with drawn from Gaza (ending any semblance of "occupation" and leaving Hamas in charge) and with Fata now in a coalition government Hamas is running out of people to blame for it's failures in goverment.

In agreeing an internal cease fire with Fatah, Hamas said they should both turn their guns on Israel. After making it clear that they had no intentions of working towards a negotiated peace (now or ever), Hamas is now seeking a way to return to the path of war. Their violation over of the ceasefire through Quasam rockets has been largely ignored by Israel. With about 10 rockets a days falling on Israel the Israeli people are "not happy" no one could blame Israel for responding. Yet Israel wants peace and has so far held back. Suicide bombing have also been kick started in the last few weeks, still the response has been limited. Disproportionatly low you might say. Hamas is frustrated. Hamas wants a war to justify their inability to negotiate with Israel, and their inability to provide for their people. It's either war in the middle east, or Hamas knows the Palestinian people will want to be rid of them - possibly leading the internal ceasefire breaking and there being war amoungst the Palestinians.

Hamas know what they want, but don't know how to justify it. One report
(a Chinese news source) said the end of the ceasefire was in response to the Israeli bridge repair work next to the Temple Mount. This just won't stick, dispite misinformation from a few Muslim groups, it's clear to all observers that the repair work is being undertaken OUTSIDE the Temple Mount and in no way endagers the foundations or anything else. The live footage from the Israel Antiquities Authority removes all doubt about this as does a quick internet search which shows most of "facts" claiming this work is a problem to be inaccurate or misleading. Another excluse was presented in Ynet which claimed it was in responce to Israel killing an expert bomb maker... who was armed and firing at Israeli troops when they went to arrest him a day after a failed suicide bomber reported him. He wasn't even a Hamas bomb maker. Eventually Hamas will come up with an excuse that has some traction, or failing that they will attach without an excuse.

As Israel waits for Hamas to kill her children in sufficient number to make a response unavoidable, the world sits silently by.

The furor surrounding the replacement of a collapsed ramp to the Temple Mount has left us at Zionism On The Web rather puzzled. The information from campaign against Israel over the replacement of this ramp bears so little resemblence to the facts that we're left wonder if it is worth responding, or if people will just work it out for themselves.

Unlike much historical misinformation, this is a current event and the facts can be very easily checked. Given this, why launch an anti-Israel campaign based on lies that as so easily proven as lies?

If the ramp were not replaced, non Muslims would no longer have access to the Temple Mount and Dome of the rock. Or rather, so long as no one wants to challenge the current agreement that all other access points are reseved for Muslims only, only Muslims could enter the Temple Mount / Dome of the Rock. This leads up to conclude that EITHER those pushing this campaign were hoping to spark a dispute with Israel over allowing non Muslims in via another gate, or they were hoping to quietly prevent non Muslims entering the Temple Mount area at all. It is this second possibly motive that causes concern. There have been serrious accusation of the destruction of artifacts at the Temple Mount. The Muslim authorities not only try an deny the existance of the Jewish Temple (a well documented historical fact) but also regularly work to remove and destroy archaeological evidence of the first and second temple.

In contrast the Israeli government insists that work in historical sites (such as this bridge reconstruction) included "emergency archaeological work" that is work aimed at ensuring any artifacts are removed, catalogued and properly handled. Similar laws exist in other countries, e.g. the UK.

In the case of the bridge this is being taken even further and video cameras have been installed to enable on-line viewing of the construction process, and basically provide total public scrutiny.

Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) Mugrabi Gate Reconstruction Project's online cameras are due to go online tomorrow afternoon (Thursday), 15.2.07, on the IAA website/

The website also has a video about the Project with an English explanation by IAA Director of Surveys and Excavations Dr. Gideon Avni and two articles under the heading "The Real Story Behind the Mugrabi Ramp."

Well worth a look for everyone that is as confused over all the fuss as we are.