Richard Silverstein

[Originally posted on this blog on 10/10/13]

The Israel Democracy Institute released its latest Democracy Index (summary and full findings), which I’ve covered here in the past. The findings, as I’ve reported before, confirm that by and large Israelis hold racist views and reject bedrock democratic principles, while believing that their country should be both Jewish and a democracy.

Just under 50% (48.9%) believe Israel should privilege Jewish citizens over non-Jews. Of those, younger Israelis showed an even higher preference for Jewish privilege (65%). 47% of Jews said that in terms of neighbors, their greatest aversion was to having an “Arab” neighbor. The survey, of course, perpetuates this racism by calling Israeli Palestinians by the common Jewish-used term, “Arab.” An even greater proportion, 56% expressed antipathy to having a foreign worker as a neighbor (among whom would be included African refugees). 42% of Palestinian respondents shared an aversion to a Jewish family as neighbors. 44% support policies encouraging Palestinian citizens to emigrate from Israel. This racist policy, known as population transfer, began in the 1970s as a hallmark of the Kahanist movement. But it became mainstream over the years (though the percentage of Israelis supporting it has gradually declined in recent years).

68% of Jews believe only they should be allowed to determine matters of peace and security, while 57% believe this should also hold true for economic matters. 31% (a plurality) believed that only Jews should be permitted to vote on any referendum on the final status of the Occupied Territories. 65% of Israeli Jews believe that Jews are “the chosen people.”

Of those, the majority tend to believe non-Jews should have no role in determining major national policy choices. The older the respondent the less likely they were to believe Jews were chosen. It should go without saying that these views are flagrantly anti-democratic and conflict with the view that most Israeli Jews hold that Israel is and should be democratic.

More »

Richard Silverstein

[Originally posted on this blog on 08/01/14]

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon: The following is a superb article by Richard Silverstein. It explores the history and meaning of the IDF’s Hannibal Directive - an Israeli military protocol designed to prevent IDF soldiers from being captured alive by enemy forces. The directive orders commanders to take necessary measures, including endangering the life of an abducted soldier, to foil a kidnapping. In practice, the Hannibal Directive orders IDF combatants to kill their comrades in a case of abduction.

Silverstein is horrified by the directive and its ethical and legal implications. He also believes that such a homicidal protocol is inconsistent with the Israeli military’s alleged heritage of caring for its soldiers.

But Silverstein’s perspective may be mistaken. It must be noted that military and civil law are distinctively different domains. While civil law serves to protect societal and individual rights, military law serves the system as a whole. This explains, for instance, why collective punishment is common and even acceptable within the context of a military legal discourse. It serves the military’s interests as opposed to the rights of individuals. The amusing adage “military law is to law as military music is to music,” captures the ethical absurdity that is entangled with military Law.

The Hannibal Directive is consistent with Israeli national and military interests. From the point of view of Israel’s strategic interests, a captured soldier entails compromises Israel would prefer to avoid.

More »

Richard Silverstein

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon: The following is a superb article by Richard Silverstein. It explores the history and meaning of the IDF’s Hannibal Directive - an Israeli military protocol designed to prevent IDF soldiers from being captured alive by enemy forces. The directive orders commanders to take necessary measures, including endangering the life of an abducted soldier, to foil a kidnapping. In practice, the Hannibal Directive orders IDF combatants to kill their comrades in a case of abduction.

Silverstein is horrified by the directive and its ethical and legal implications. He also believes that such a homicidal protocol is inconsistent with the Israeli military’s alleged heritage of caring for its soldiers.

But Silverstein’s perspective may be mistaken. It must be noted that military and civil law are distinctively different domains. While civil law serves to protect societal and individual rights, military law serves the system as a whole. This explains, for instance, why collective punishment is common and even acceptable within the context of a military legal discourse. It serves the military’s interests as opposed to the rights of individuals. The amusing adage “military law is to law as military music is to music,” captures the ethical absurdity that is entangled with military Law.

The Hannibal Directive is consistent with Israeli national and military interests. From the point of view of Israel’s strategic interests, a captured soldier entails compromises Israel would prefer to avoid.

Silverstein writes, “The Hannibal Directive embraces a fascist perspective in which the individual is subsumed within the mass. He has no specific individual value unless he is serving the interest of the nation. And his interests may, when necessary be sacrificed to the greater good.” Silverstein is addressing the issue from an ethical perspective within the spirit of enlightenment. But Zionism and Jewish nationalism are inherently anti-enlightenment ideologies. Zionism denotes the birth of the ‘Jewish people,’ the idea that every Jew is an integral part of a larger collective with clear tribal interests that outweigh the individual. Accordingly, in an extreme situation, the interests of the tribe are far more important than the individual rights. The Hannibal Directive is a glimpse into the depth of the Jewish collective bond and tribal commitment. It exposes the level of commitment and sacrifice expected of tribal members.

Silverstein identifies the directive as fascist, but he should remember that Zionism predates Fascism and unlike Fascism that was largely defeated, Zionism has so far prevailed.

More »

Richard Silverstein

The Israel Democracy Institute released its latest Democracy Index (summary and full findings), which I’ve covered here in the past. The findings, as I’ve reported before, confirm that by and large Israelis hold racist views and reject bedrock democratic principles, while believing that their country should be both Jewish and a democracy.

Just under 50% (48.9%) believe Israel should privilege Jewish citizens over non-Jews. Of those, younger Israelis showed an even higher preference for Jewish privilege (65%). 47% of Jews said that in terms of neighbors, their greatest aversion was to having an “Arab” neighbor. The survey, of course, perpetuates this racism by calling Israeli Palestinians by the common Jewish-used term, “Arab.” An even greater proportion, 56% expressed antipathy to having a foreign worker as a neighbor (among whom would be included African refugees). 42% of Palestinian respondents shared an aversion to a Jewish family as neighbors.

44% support policies encouraging Palestinian citizens to emigrate from Israel. This racist policy, known as population transfer, began in the 1970s as a hallmark of the Kahanist movement. But it became mainstream over the years (though the percentage of Israelis supporting it has gradually declined in recent years).

More »

Stephen Lendman

After 28 months of conflict, Assad defeated Washington's best laid plans. Its Syrian National Coalition (SNC) opposition lacks effective leadership. It lacks legitimacy. It's an artificial construct. It operates extrajudicially. It resembles a gang that can't shoot straight.

On July 8, another leader resigned. After four months, self-styled prime minister Ghassan Hitto announced he won't "continue in (his) capacity as prime minister tasked with leading the interim government, though (he) emphasize(s he'll) 'continue working for the interests of the revolution and towards achieving its objectives."

Hitto's resignation came two days after SNC members elected Ahmad Asi-al Jarba president. The post's been vacant since Mouaz al-Khatib resigned in April. He cited frustration over lack of enough international support, internal divisions, and disarray among "rebel" factions. Washington hoped he'd become Syria's Hamid Karzai. Maybe Obama has similar aspirations for al-Jarba. Washington's war on Syria's no "revolution." There's nothing civil about it. It's US proxy aggression. Foreign death squad invaders want Islamofacism replacing Syrian sovereignty.

Repeated changing of the guard shows SNC ranks in disarray. Al-Khatib and Hitto couldn't resolve SNC divisions. Don't expect al-Jarba to fare better. Just causes close ranks effectively. Rogue operations feature self-aggrandizing, power-hungry opportunists.

They face overwhelming Syrian opposition. Most Syrians support Assad. They do so for good reason. They alone want to decide who rule them. They deplore outside intervention. Disorganized "rebel" ranks are no match for Syria's superior military. It continues making impressive gains.

More »

Bill Van Auken

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud
Barak at the IDF air base in Hatzerim. (IDF handout, Haaretz)

A leaked memo that surfaced Wednesday provides a detailed blueprint for an unprovoked Israeli war against Iran. The publication of the memo coincides with multiple Israeli media reports indicating that such an attack may be imminent.

The memo was first published by US blogger and journalist Richard Silverstein and was subsequently picked up by the BBC and other media. Silverstein said that the document had been passed by a member of the Israel Defense Forces to a politician, and then on to him. He said it had been prepared for the eight-member Israeli Security Council as part of a bid by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak to convince other members of the government to support an early and unilateral Israeli strike.

The memo posted on Silverstein’s blog, Tikun Olam, states: “The Israeli attack will open with a coordinated strike, including an unprecedented cyber-attack which will totally paralyze the Iranian regime.” The aim is to shut down all communications between the Iranian government and military, leaving the country’s leadership in the dark about what is happening at key installations and bases. Carbon fiber munitions would be employed to shut down the country’s electrical grid.

Meanwhile, “A barrage of tens of ballistic missiles would be launched from Israel toward Iran,” the memo states. These would be fired by Israeli submarines from the Persian Gulf region against Iranian nuclear facilities at Arak, Ishfahan, Fordo and elsewhere. They would be supplemented by “a barrage of hundreds of cruise missiles” aimed at destroying the regime’s command and control capacity and decapitating Iran’s nuclear and missile development program, targeting the “residences of senior personnel.”

These attacks would be followed up by Israeli Air Force warplanes carrying out air strikes against “targets which require further assault.”

Clearly, such an assault would inflict massive civilian casualties while plunging the entire region into chaos.

More »

Stephen Lendman

An October B'Tselem/HaMoked, Center of the Defence of the Individual report, titled "Kept in the Dark: Treatment of Palestinian Detainees in the Petach-Tikva Interrogation Facility of the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet)" is discussed below. Though, in some respects, treatment over the years has changed, it remains harsh, abusive, and in violation of international law, prohibiting all forms of torture and mistreatment at all times, under all conditions, with no allowed exceptions.

The report is based on testimonies from 121 Palestinian detainees during Q 1 and Q 4, 2009. Clear patterns of mistreatment were revealed - torture and abuse by any standard, what Israel practices as official policy.

An earlier article explained it in detail, accessed through THIS link.

Though denied, torture is official Israeli policy. The Jewish state and America are the only modern countries sanctioning it. Another link explains more:

Both countries, in fact, have laws prohibiting it, America under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause alone that automatically makes all international laws and ratified treaties the Supreme Law of the Land. In addition, War Crimes Act provisions make Geneva and Common Article 3 breaches illegal, including torture, abuse, and humiliating or degrading treatment.

Moreover, US Code, Chapter 113C: Torture states:

"Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life."

Israeli law also prohibits it under Section 277 of its Penal Law, stating:

"A public servant who does one of the following is liable to imprisonment for three years: (1) uses or directs the use of force or violence against a person for the purpose of extorting from him or from anyone in whom he is interested a confession of an offense or information relating to an offense; (2) threatens any person, or directs any person to be threatened, with injury to his person or property or to the person or property of anyone in whom he is interested for the purpose of extorting from him a confession of an offense or any information relating to an offense."

Israel is also a signatory to international laws banning torture in all forms, including the 1984 UN Convention against Torture. Yet throughout its history, Israel's military and security forces have willfully, systematically and illegally practiced torture against Palestinian detainees.

In three 1996 cases, Israel's High Court legitimized use of violent shaking, hooding, playing deafeningly loud music, sleep deprivations, and lengthy detainments to continue these abuses. A 1999 ruling addressed so-called "ticking bomb" cases, approving physical force and other abuses, short of breaking a detainee's spirit. Moreover, by allowing loopholes, torture's current legal basis was established in Public Committee against Torture in Israel et al v. the Government of Israel et al (the HCJ Torture Petition).

More »

Kourosh Ziabari

Those who regularly follow the developments of Iran might have come across to the website of

"United Against Nuclear Iran", a "non-partisan, non-profit advocacy organization" that seeks to "prevent Iran from fulfilling its ambition to become a regional super-power possessing nuclear weapons".

UANI has compiled an elaborate list of the foreign companies and firms which do business with Iran and calls on its readers and visitors to send condemnatory letters and complaints to these companies so as to persuade them to withdraw their capitals and resources from Iran and stop doing business with a country which the United States and its European allies consider to be an emerging nuclear threat in the Middle East.

Interestingly, UANI has listed each and every foreign company which is active in Iran, from the food production companies to internet service providers, medicine manufacturers, industrial conglomerates, news agencies, transportation infrastructure providers and private consortiums, and its objective is to convince these companies to put an end to their activities in Iran.

UANI runs a divestment campaign which contains pressuring foreign corporations to stop conducting business with Iran. So far, it has succeeded in pulling out General Electric, Caterpillar and Ingersoll Rand from Iran's market.

More »

Marco Villa

I have written about this, and this debate has taken on strong passions not only in the blogosphere but also in the so-called ‘paper-of-record’ the New York Times. The debate merits a collection here on IB so you can decide for yourself if I am right or wrong. First my writings:

Israel and its Zionist supporters should not bother to spend hundreds of millions in propaganda in the U.S. - which they do - since the U.S. media is happy to offer Israel billions in dollars of worth in free promotion.

ABC News, which under Peter Jennings used to be the only reliable nightly newscast on the Middle East; is now under the auspicious of fluff-news journalist Diane Sawyer. And Sawyer is all about the human interest angle devoid of any real information or context.

Last night, she had a story about an Israeli operated tent-hospital in Haiti. She gushed with praise about how Israelis were the first on the scene in contrast to the United States which has yet to set up an equal organization. About how skilled Israelis are, they even have specified tents!, and the Haitian people are so grateful one baby girl was named “Israel”.

More »