[imra] Daily digest - Volume: 2 Issue: 1356 (15 messages)

imra Sun Mar 26 00:22:49 2006 Volume 2 : Issue 1356

In this issue of the imra daily Digest:

Hamas says won't arrest militants behind attacks
U.S. COURT TURNS POLLARD DOWN,
IT'S NOW UP TO ISRAEL
Weekly Commentary: Thinking through retreat
Excerpts: Hope for Arab monarchies reform.
Egypt's 25 year--old emegency laws.24 March 2006
Halutz: We'll find solution for Qassam threat
[respect human shields]
Polls: Kadima 33-37 Labor 17-21 Likud 14-17
Yisrael Beiteinu 10-11 NRP/Nat'l Union 9-11
Text: Mofaz defines "operating" so IDF
can also retreat from West Bank
24 March, 2006 16:40
Excerpts: Turkey's fear of Iran's influence.
U.S. and Iran conferring on Iraq. 25 March 2006
Ha'aretz English edition fails to run Shavit's 2nd article against
[With text]President Abbas Delivers
a Letter to PM-designate Ismail Haniya
Labor party activist electrocuted
trying to replace Likud sign with Labor sign
Qassam hits Ashkelon structure - no cigar
Ha'aretz English edition fails to run Shavit's
2nd article against retreat plan
Ha'aretz English edition fails to run Shavit's
2nd article against retreat plan

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Hamas says won't arrest militants behind attacks

Hamas says won't arrest militants behind attacks

Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:49 AM ET
By Nidal al-Mughrabi
http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-03-23T144925Z_01_L23127773_RTRUKOT_0_TEXT0.xml&related=true&src=cms

GAZA (Reuters) - Incoming Palestinian interior minister Saeed Seyam, chosen
by Hamas to oversee three security services, said on Thursday he will not
order the arrest of militants carrying out attacks against Israel.

"The day will never come when any Palestinian would be arrested because of
his political affiliation or because of resisting the occupation," Seyam
told Reuters in an interview. "The file of political detention must be
closed."

Hamas, whose charter officially calls for Israel's destruction, swept to
victory in a January 25 election and plans to present its cabinet line-up to
a Hamas-dominated parliament for a vote next week.

The militant group has selected Hamas loyalists like Seyam to fill almost
all of the 24-member cabinet after President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah faction
and other moderate parties refused to join a coalition with Hamas.

Hamas's failure to convince rival factions to join the government could make
it harder for it to rule and could cement U.S. and Israeli efforts to
isolate the group.

As well as vowing not to arrest militants for carrying out attacks against
Israel, Seyam said Hamas would try to coordinate militants' operations.

"Talks with the factions in the future will focus on the mechanisms, the
shape and the timing (of any attacks)," he said. "But the right to defend
our people and to confront the aggression is granted and is legitimate."

Seyam said he had begun talks with Palestinian security chiefs in the hope
of averting fighting within the security services. A majority of the
20,000-plus security personnel, who will answer to Seyam, are Fatah members.

Seyam said maintaining law and order would be a top priority. There were
several hundred murders in Gaza and the West Bank last year, according to
Human Rights groups.

Seyam said his ministry would continue to coordinate day-to-day security
issues, like the number of permits given to Palestinian workers, with
Israeli authorities. But Seyam said he did not plan to meet Israelis
himself.

"Regarding daily issues, they will not be changed, except in the way that
serves the interest of our people," he said.

Israel and the United States have said they will not have any contact with
Hamas members and have urged donors to cut off direct funding to the
government unless it renounces violence, abides by interim peace deals and
recognizes the Jewish state.

"Saeed Seyam did not come to the government to revive any security
cooperation or to protect the occupation and their settlers. I came to
protect our people and their fighters, to protect their trees, their
properties and their capabilities," Seyam said.

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: U.S. COURT TURNS POLLARD DOWN,
IT'S NOW UP TO ISRAEL

U.S. COURT TURNS POLLARD DOWN, IT'S NOW UP TO ISRAEL
By Hillel Fendel - Arutz7 News - March 23, 2007

The U.S. Supreme Court has turned down a request by Jonathan Pollard
to access documents that could help his bid to seek clemency. [J4JP: The
Supreme did not reject the merits of the petition; it simply declined to
deal with the petition at all.] The ball is now totally in Israel's court,
says his wife.

The Supreme Court refused this week, without comment, to hear
Pollard's request to see classified documents - including a critical
memo written by ex-U.S. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. The
documents in question were submitted to the judge who originally
sentenced Pollard to life in prison 21 years ago for having passed
classified documents to Israel, a U.S. ally. Pollard's attorneys say
the documents are crucial in his bid to seek clemency from President
Bush.

Pollard's wife Esther responded to the U.S. Court's decision by saying
that Israeli Prime Ministers have always said that they are restrained
in their efforts on behalf of Pollard because of the "ongoing legal
initiative in the U.S. But now, no one can claim [that]! The legal
initiative is over! Every additional minute that Jonathan remains in
prison, his life is at risk. ... The [Acting] Prime Minister [Olmert]
must act at once - before this day is over!"

Mrs. Pollard told Israel Radio, "This is the first time in the history
of modern espionage that an agent has been forced to face a court of
law on his own in the country where he operated, without receiving any
support from the country which sent him and for whom he sacrificed
himself. It is now 21 years! Ayfoh HaBoosha?! [Where is the sense of
shame?!] To this very day they are not working for Jonathan's release
and not giving him any backing!"

"Whenever I am out in public," she said, "people come up to me again
and again to express their outrage at the ingratitude and
irresponsibility of the government, which instead of freeing from
captivity the one who served the State and saved the lives of Israeli
citizens, just threw him to the dogs... You know, even the ordinary
citizen on the street understands that whomever is willing to leave a
wounded soldier 'me'ahora' [behind] is not capable of leading the
nation 'Kadima' [forward]."

The blow to Pollard from the U.S. legal system follows by just three
months a similar blow from Israel's Supreme Court. Israel's High
Court rejected Pollard's plea to have the State of Israel recognize
him as a Prisoner of Zion, ruling that his activities on behalf of
Israel did not meet the required criteria, such as teaching Hebrew or
encouraging immigration to Israel.

Mrs. Pollard refused to condemn U.S. Jewry's inaction on behalf of her
husband, saying, "They take their marching orders, their instructions,
from the Government of Israel. As long as the Government of Israel
continues to turn its back on Jonathan, everyone else will continue to
do the same."

"I want to repeat and reiterate: He is in mortal danger. Every
additional moment, every additional second that Jonathan remains in
prison, his life hangs in the balance. There is no reason to wait to
bring him home in a coffin, G-d forbid! ... If [Olmert] does not
immediately turn to President Bush to demand an immediate end to this
travesty, and to free my husband after 21 years in prison, then Mr.
Olmert will personally be sentencing Jonathan to death."

The Pollards later released a statement expressing "admiration,
gratitude and profound respect to their American attorneys, Eliot
Lauer and Jacques Semmelman, for their heroic, undying, untiring
efforts to secure justice for Jonathan Pollard, against insuperable
odds. Their courage, determination, dedication and devotion to the
truth has done the Jewish People great honor and been an enormous
Kiddush HaShem [Sanctification of G-d's name]. Fighting a battle for
justice - uphill all the way - against three government agencies [the
Justice, Intelligence and Defense Departments] determined to prevent
the truth in this case from ever coming to light, Lauer and Semmelman
fought all the way to the Supreme Court without ever breaking stride
or becoming discouraged in the face of utter corruption and
behind-the-scenes subversion."

The statement accuses the above agencies of having "thrown their full
weight into subverting the rule of law to ensure that Jonathan
Pollard, the Jewish agent of the Jewish State, never gets his day in
court and that he remain in prison as a constant symbol for use
against Israel and against the American Jewish community." -30-

SEE ALSO:

Transcript: Kol Yisrael Radio Interview of Esther Pollard
on U.S. Supreme Court Dismissal of Jonathan's Petition
http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2006/032106.htm

Pollards Grateful After US Supreme Court Dismissal
www.jonathanpollard.org/2006/032106a.htm

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Weekly Commentary: Thinking through retreat

Weekly Commentary: Thinking through retreat

Aaron Lerner Date: 23 March 2006

What happens if Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert succeeds next week in
getting enough votes to put together a stable "retreat coalition"?

According to Olmert, once Israel determines that the absence of a
Palestinian partner renders the Roadmap irrelevant (a determination that can
be made in 60 seconds) his team would negotiate and implement an Israeli
retreat from most of the West Bank.

These talks would take place both within Israeli society and with various
foreign countries out of an interest in imbuing the retreat line
international recognition.

Mr. Olmert has been careful not to specify where the retreat lines will be
but has indicated that some major settlement blocs would be retained by
Israel.

This is not the first time that the Israeli public has been assured that the
reward for retreat would be international recognition of the "settlement
blocs."

The Sharon team claimed that the major pay back for retreat from the Gaza
Strip was American recognition of Israel's right to retain the "settlement
blocs" when in fact the "reward" was only the suggestion by the United
States that, contrary to the Palestinian position, those blocs were
legitimate negotiating chips that could be expected to have some value in
final status talks.

As a legitimate negotiating chip, for example, the United States might
expect Israel to be able to trade them, for Ramat Eshkol, French Hill and
other Jewish neighborhood beyond the Green Line in Jerusalem.

But, as America made clear repeatedly, they made these observations as
kibitzers on the sideline - not negotiators.

To repeat: the "reward" for retreating from Gaza was not an American
commitment to support Israel's retention of the major settlement blocs but
instead only the remark from the sidelines that America thinks Israel might
be able to get something in return for relinquishing them to the
Palestinians - but that it is ultimately up to the Palestinians to decide.

While the Sharon team insisted that this wasn't the case, the route of the
separation fence serves as a clear indication that they were well aware of
the true meaning of the American remarks.

Here was Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at the very apogee of world support
thanks to his retreat plan and he couldn't put the Ariel bloc within the
fence.

What then can be expected to be the dynamics of the "retreat talks"?

Internally, the Olmert team would negotiate with either official or
unofficial representatives of the Israeli West Bank communities (there are
some who joined the Kadima Party in the expectation that this would somehow
put them in a more effective negotiating position) to reach ostensibly
"consensus" retreat lines.

The area within these retreat lines would then be whittled down as the
Olmert team sought foreign recognition of the retreat with each interlocutor
seeking to take credit for inducing Israel to deepen its retreat even
further both geographically and functionally.

Some retreat proponents claim that Israel would bulldoze the communities
beyond the fence but still retain its military presence but the issue of
military presence is exactly the kind of functional question that Israel
would be pressed to yield on as it seeks foreign support for the retreat.

By the same token, one can expect considerable pressure on Israel to yield
on such issues as the establishment of some kind of land link between the
West Bank and Jordan (following the Rafah model that stripped Israel of
control) and even possibly an air corridor.

But would this then ultimately mean retreating to internationally recognized
final borders?

Hardly.

At best it means retreating to lines that would ultimately serve as the
opening point for Arab-Israeli final status talks.

There is, of course, another element in the picture. The Hamas dominated PA.

The goal of the Olmert retreat is ostensibly to reduce Israeli casualties by
retreating from areas where there is considerable "friction".

And since the contours of the Olmert retreat would also be driven by
"friction avoidance" it follows that the Palestinians would do everything in
their power to apply "friction" to induce greater withdrawals.

Put simply: the Olmert team would reward Palestinian terror with ever deeper
retreats.

A vote for Kadima isn't a vote over nuance. It isn't a vote over
personalities. A vote for Kadima is a vote for retreat to temporary lines
that will only invite Palestinian terror to induce further retreats.

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(Mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il
Website: http://www.imra.org.il

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Excerpts: Hope for Arab monarchies reform.
Egypt's 25 year--old emegency laws.24 March 2006

Excerpts: Hope for Arab monarchies reform.Egypt's 25 year--old emegency
laws.24 March 2006

+++JORDAN TIMES 224-25 Mar.'06:
"Reforming Arab monarchies - models or mirages?" by Rami G. Khouri
QUOTES FROM TEXT:

"Might ... violence-prone Arab countries ... institute the reforms"

"kingdoms have tended to enjoy moe legitimacy and stability"

"reform programs .. unevenly implemented"

"Jordan and Morocco ... unsure how to push political change alongside
economic and administrative reforms"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FULL TEXT:
Might conservative, top-heavy, security-minded Arab kingdoms provide a
feasible model of how politically stressed, violence-prone Arab countries
can institute the reforms needed to meet the challenges they face in all
sectors? Perhaps - if they complete the job.
One of the oddities of the modern Arab world is that kingdoms have tended to
enjoy more legitimacy and stability than most other "republican" countries.
Jordan, Morocco, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and a few others have had
their ups and downs, but they have also displayed a noteworthy combination
of continuity of rule and a recent tendency to accept the need to reform.
It remains unclear in most cases, though, whether such royally mandated
reform initiatives are serious models that others can emulate, or are just
cruel, tantalising mirages in the desert, offering a compelling vision of
something appealing to strive for but never actually reached, because, in
fact, it is not real.
Two Arab kingdoms that are worth examining more closely in this respect are
Morocco and Jordan. On several recent trips to these countries, almost every
discussion I have had about current affairs quickly reverts to the urgency
of implementing deep political, economic and social reforms, if the citizens
wish to ensure a secure, productive future. The monarchies in both lands are
very similar: young kings who took over from legendary long-ruling fathers
and are reform prone, but who also spark sharply contested political debate
in their own societies.
King Abdullah II and King Mohammad VI of Morocco both inherited countries
suffering political tensions and economic stress. These included legacies of
pro-American foreign policies, security-dominated domestic governance
systems, widening socio-economic disparities, homegrown Islamist opposition
movements and, as they would both discover, local terrorist cells that do
not hesitate to attack fellow citizens.
They both quickly initiated reform programmes that are driven and largely
defined in their broad parameters from the top, but aiming at comprehensive
reform of political, economic, social, administrative and educational
systems. Both reform programmes also are unevenly implemented, and
controversial. They elicit fulsome praise from entrenched old guards that
believe they can control and limit the actual devolution of power from the
hands of the traditional elite; they also draw strong disdain from doubters
who criticise the lack of any real change in the exercise of political
power, including the two principal components: control of the budget and the
security services.
The Moroccan king's initiative has been nicely documented in a recent report
by a study group from the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and
International Studies (cis.org/mideast). It highlights noteworthy advances
in political participation, freedom of speech, women's rights,
decentralisation and addressing past human rights abuses through the
recently concluded hearings of the Equity and Reconciliation Commission. But
it also notes real limitations in all fields, since effective power remains
closely held by the king and his governing elite, and the palace alone sets
the pace of change.
My own sense is that signs of real change are offset by other disturbing
examples of the ways of the past. A few weeks ago, for example, the
government seems to have launched a campaign against the feisty opposition
weekly magazine Le Journal Hebdomadaire. Credible evidence suggests that the
interior ministry and local government authorities in Casablanca organised a
demonstration against the publication, while state-run television
editorially attacked the magazine and a court fined it a disproportionately
large amount of money, aimed at crippling it financially.
The respected New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists has asked the
king to launch an investigation into why the Moroccan state apparently
orchestrated this attack against an independent magazine. He would do well
to order an honest probe, because the king himself will suffer politically
if his government claims to champion reform while it also unleashes its
goons against independent journalists who peacefully disagree with the
state's policies. Reform and ruffianism simply do not mix, and cannot
coexist in Morocco or any other Arab land.
Jordan is at a similar crossroads in its reform history. Upon the King's
directive, a year-long widely consultative and inclusive process was
launched and drew up a very ambitious National Agenda for Reform for
2006-2015. It includes very serious, impressive, quantifiable and measurable
reform targets in every sphere of life, from politics, justice and education
to investment, finance, employment and infrastructure
(www.nationalagenda.jo). It is the Arab reform equivalent of a powerful,
pace-setting Mercedes 600 limousine - but it is not clear yet if the King
and the government have their foot on the accelerator or the brakes in
pursuing the changes outlined in the agenda.
Like Morocco, Jordan is serious about achieving economic and social
modernity, but appears unsure about how to modernise politically on the
basis of equal rights for all citizens. This is mainly due to long-standing
concerns about strong local political sentiments that are pro-Palestinian,
pro-Arab nationalist, anti-American, anti-Israeli and pro-Islamic. These
real constraints cannot be swept under the rug, perpetually covered by
appeals to security, tradition or narrowly controlled power. Economic
modernity without political modernity, alas, is antiquity and anti-modernity
in the end - Rome and Carthage digitised.
Jordan and Morocco can be important examples of real Arab reforms that are
locally defined and implemented. Yet they both seem unsure how to push
political change alongside economic and administrative reforms. They should
address this challenge more boldly because they still have the leadership
legitimacy to do so, which is not the case in many other Arab countries.

+++THE DAILY STAR (Lebanon) 24 Mar.'06::Egypt to lift emergency laws" by
Simon Apiku (AFP)

HEADING:"[Egypt's P.M.] Nazif orders experts to draft new anti-terror
legislation

QUOTES FROM TEXT:
"laws will be replaced by new anti-terror legislation"

"government says ... invoked the laws only in specific cases such as its
fight against suspected
Islamist terrorists"

"P.M.Nazif ... ordered formation of committee of experts to draft the new
law without saying when he expected it to come into force"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXCERPTS:

CAIRO: Egypt plans to lift 25-year-old emergency laws granting security
forces sweeping powers of arrest and detention that critics have long
claimed are used against opponents of the government. Prime Minister Ahmad
Nazif announced the move in a speech to Parliament late Wednesday, saying
the laws would be replaced by new anti-terror legislation in Egypt, which
has witnesses a string of deadly attacks in recent years.

Nazif said he had ordered the formation of a committee of experts to draft
the new law, without saying when he expected it to come into force.

. . .

Parliament has renewed the emergency laws every three years ... ignoring
opposition demands and calls from local and international human rights
groups that they be repealed.

The legislation was last extended in 2003 and is due to expire at the end of
May.

The laws allow the government to detain anyone deemed to be threatening
state security for renewable 45-day periods without court orders and also
give military courts the power to try civilians.

Public demonstrations are banned under the legislation, which opponents also
see as an attempt by the state to stifle basic freedoms, including freedom
of association.

Opposition parties and the pro-reform movement Kefaya (Enough) have already
launched a campaign calling on Parliament not to extend the laws when the
government refers them to the assembly.

The government ... says it has invoked the laws only in specific cases such
as its fight against suspected Islamist militants. . . .

Sue Lerner, Associate - IMRA

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Halutz: We'll find solution for Qassam threat
[respect human shields]

Halutz: We'll find solution for Qassam threat
Hanan Greenberg - YNET 24 March 2006
www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/CdaNewsFlash/0,2297,L-3231807_3089,00.html

IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz said Friday during a conference at Bar-Ilan
University "Eventually we will find a solution for the Qassam rockets. I
hope we will be successful in reducing this threat to a minimum without
crossing lines. For instance, I will not recommend we shoot civilians in
Gaza."

Referring to the Iranian threat, Halutz said "the Iranian president's
statements should not be taken lightly; we must prepare accordingly."

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Polls: Kadima 33-37 Labor 17-21 Likud 14-17
Yisrael Beiteinu 10-11 NRP/Nat'l Union 9-11

Polls: Kadima 33-37 Labor 17-21 Likud 14-17 Yisrael Beiteinu 10-11 NRP/Nat'l
Union 9-11

Aaron Lerner Date:23 March 2006

#1 Telephone poll of a representative sample of 501 adult Israelis
(including Arab Israelis) carried out by the Smith Institute for The
Jerusalem Post on 22 March 2006

#2 Telephone poll of a representative sample of adult Israelis (including
Arab
Israelis) carried out by Geocartographia for Israel Radio's "Its all Talk"
on 22 March 2006

#3 Telephone poll of a representative sample of 1003 adult Israelis
(including Arab Israelis) carried out by Dahaf for Yediot Ahronot on 22
March 2006 [retirees get 1.4% Greens 1.4% Chetz (ex-Shinui) 0.6%
Tafnit(Dayan) 0.5% - anything less than 2% doesn't count]

#4 Telephone poll of a representative sample of 500 adult Israelis
(including Arab Israelis) carried out by Teleseker for Maariv on 22 March
2006

Knesset election vote expressed in mandates[current in brackets]
#1 #2 #3 #4
34.0 33.5 36 37 [00] Kadima
15.0 16.5 14 14 [40] Likud
19.5 17.5 21 21 [22] Labor
00.0 00.0 00 00 [15] Shinui (both the party and the break-away "Secular
Zionist Party")
11.0 09.5 11 09 [11] Shas
09.0 08.5 07 08 [08] Arab parties
05.0 06.0 06 05 [06] Yachad [Meretz]
10.0 09.0 09 11 [07* & 6] National Union & NRP
10.5 10.5 11 10 [07*] Yisrael Beiteinu [Lieberman]
05.5 07.0 05 05 [05] Yahadut Hatorah
00.0 00.0 00 00 [00] Green Leaf (legalize hashish)
00.0 02.0 00 00 [00] Gil [retired people's party headed by Rafi Eitan]
* National Union & Yisrael Beiteinu together have 7 seats
"33.5" = 33-34

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il
Website: http://www.imra.org.il

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Text: Mofaz defines "operating" so IDF
can also retreat from West Bank

Text: Mofaz defines "operating" so IDF can also retreat from West Bank

Aaron Lerner Date: 24 March 2006

Question: Will the army remain in the evacuated area?

Mofaz: We will continue operating in the area under every possible
situation. We are still operating in Gaza, though not on the ground. We
need to reserve the right to operate in all senses of the word. Judea and
Samaria is different from Gaza. We pulled the Army out of Gaza, since it
was one dense urban area, and staying there would have been difficult.
Judea and Samaria is different. But to tell you that once we leave we will
return to every place - I don't know.

The Jerusalem Post interview by Yaakov Katz - 24 March 2006

Explanation: "Operating" in an area doesn't mean "remaining" there. "We are
still operating in Gaza."

In fact, in answer to the question, Mofaz uses the term "once we leave" in
describing the IDF in the West Bank after Olmert's planned retreat.

Thus, Mofaz is actually indicating that the IDF may very well high-tail it
out of the area after razing the Jewish communities.

Unfortunately the interviewer apparently did not ask Mr. Mofaz to explain
the gaping differences between what he said prior to the Gaza retreat (that
Israel would use decisive force after the retreat in response to the first
post-retreat Qassam attacks in order to achieve deterrent effect) and
reality (many hundreds of Qassams later, the standard Israeli response to
attacks is to shell empty fields later in the day) and why the situation
would be no difference after retreating from the West Bank.

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(Mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il
Website: http://www.imra.org.il

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: 24 March, 2006 16:40

Column One: The Jewish threat
Caroline Glick, THE JERUSALEM POST Mar. 23, 2006
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395665010&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

On the eve of Israel's elections, Israelis should be deeply concerned about
the state of our relations with the United States.
Last week the London Review of Books published a long article under the
heading "The Israel Lobby." The article was authored by two prominent
American international relations and political science professors: Stephen
Walt, the academic dean at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and John
Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago.

...Walt and Mearsheimer argue that the reason that the US acts in opposition
to its national interests is because for the past four decades US Middle
East policy has been dictated by the "Israel Lobby." The distinguished
professors define the Israel lobby, or in their conspiratorial shorthand,
"the Lobby," as "the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who
actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction." Members
of "the Lobby" include most US media outlets; Jewish American organizations
generally and AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish
American Organizations in particular; pro-Israel evangelical Christians;
Jewish and "gentile neo-conservative" newspaper columnists; Washington think
tanks - both Jewish and "gentile neo-conservative"; Jewish government
officials and politicians; and "gentile neo-conservative" government
officials and politicians.

...The two celebrated professors declare that the reports of anti-Semitism
in Europe are either incorrect or wildly exaggerated and work to advance the
interests of "the Lobby" and Israel. As well, they accuse "the Lobby" of
silencing criticism of Israel by labeling everyone who dares to criticize
the Jewish state as an anti-Semite.

...

The fact that academic works criticizing Israel are held to a lower standard
than works on any other subject should elicit some response from Israel. But
to date, Israel's Kadima government not only has not dealt with this state
of affairs, it has insisted that the problem does not exist.

Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his friends in Kadima mindlessly
repeat the hollow mantra that our relations with the US have never been
better. They maintain that handing Judea and Samaria over to Hamas will
strengthen the goodwill of the international community that Israel
supposedly has enjoyed since the withdrawal from Gaza eight months ago.

If it does nothing else, Walt and Mearsheimer's screed proves the absolute
stupidity of the claim that Israeli land giveaways and expulsions of
Israelis from their homes increase international sympathy and support for
Israel. Their article not only gives Israel no credit for coming to the
brink of civil war this summer when it ethnically cleansed Gaza of Jews in
the hopes of appeasing international opinion, it claims that Israel intended
to bring about Hamas's electoral victory in January in order to force the US
to continue to support it.

For their part, the Bush administration and the Europeans today continue to
hold Israel responsible for the wellbeing of Gazans and demand that Israel
feed them, and provide them with everything from electricity to emergency
medical care. To earn their "goodwill," the Israeli government agreed this
week to endanger Israel's national security by continuing to finance the
Hamas-led Palestinian Authority and by operating the Karni cargo terminal at
the Gaza border as if Israel had never withdrawn.

Here is the place to mention that in 1999 I studied under Walt at the
Kennedy School. It was clear to me back then, through
Walt's passive-aggressive non-sequiturs about American Jews and the Israel
lobby, that he suffered from an unhealthy obsession with the Jewish state.
But back then, when the Likud that he so despises was in power and the
government conditioned all Israeli concessions to the Palestinians on
reciprocal, measurable Palestinian concessions to Israel, Walt did not give
his hostility towards Israel and its supporters such direct and crass
expression either in his classroom lectures or in his publications. Rather,
he does so now, when Israel is ruled by a party whose only clearly stated
policy is its intention to destroy Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria
and transfer the areas to Hamas without receiving anything in return.

The growing crisis in Israel's relations with American and other Western
societies as manifested by Mearsheimer and Walt's
decision to publish their essay leads to two conclusions. First, Israeli
weakness harms Israel's international standing and Israeli strength enhances
it. Ironically, this conclusion arises from the realist worldview that Walt
and Mearsheimer champion on every issue except for Israel. If states seek to
increase their strength through their international policies, it makes more
sense for them to attack a weak state which will respond to expressions of
hostility by seeking to appease the aggressors, than to attack a strong
state that will exact a price for such aggression. Israeli demonstrations of
international, political, military or cultural weakness open it up to ever
escalating demands and expressions of animosity.

Finally, Walt and Mearsheimer's decision to publish their essay points to
Israel's desperate need for a leader who understands international politics
generally and American politics specifically. In World War II, the
preponderance of Walt and Mearsheimer's view - that the Jews forced America
to enter the war - caused the Roosevelt administration to refuse to lift a
finger to save European Jewry. If, with the assistance of a weak and
incompetent Israeli government, their view again becomes prominent, Israel
will find itself in existential peril.

Today there is only one Israeli leader capable of rebuilding Israel's
standing in the international community generally and in American society
particularly. We have only one leader who is capable of bringing about a
renewed delegitimization of views like those expressed in Walt and
Mearsheimer's essay.

His name is Binyamin Netanyahu.

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Excerpts: Turkey's fear of Iran's influence.
U.S. and Iran conferring on Iraq. 25 March 2006

Excerpts: Turkey's fear of Iran's influence.U.S. and Iran conferring on
Iraq. 25 March 2006

++++++THE DAILY STAR (Lebanon) 24 Mar.'06 "Turkey's emerging fear: Iranian
influence"

Commentary by Iason Athanasiadis "specialist in Middle East politics who
often visits Iran"

QUOTES FROM TEXT:
"Turkish Foreign Minister feared the spread of Iranian influence from
southern Iraq to his own country"

"Ankara reacently announced its willingness to act as an intermediary
with Iran over ... nuclear power"

"growing raprochment between the US and Turkey"

... Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul recently confessed that he feared
the spread of Iranian influence from southern Iraq to his own country.
Although Gul later denied having made this statement, his comment was a
valuable insigth into Turkey's true concerns over political developments on
its southern flank. There, the Bush administration has subjected three
countries to concerted political pressure in the aftermath of the September
11, 2001 attacks. After five years of such pressure, Iran and Syria are
turning into increasingly isolated international pariahs. The same policy,
when applied by Washington to Iraq, culminated in the country's invasion and
the growing fragmentation of its society along sectarian lines. Both Iran
and Syria include similar ethnic mosaics, so the prospect of persistent
instability could prompt them to dangerously realign along racial, tribal or
sectarian fronts.
Turkey's other big concern is that the Bush administration's clumsy
redrawing of the regional geopolitical map has brought about a potentially
unstoppable rise in Iranian influence. And while Turkish Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan has accepted his country's secularism, he also heads
one of the more overtly Muslim governments in the history of the Turkish
republic. ... . ... Recently, a group of retired generals and ambassadors
diagnosed the development of "theocratic nationalism" in Iran and warned of
the danger it posed to Turkey.
. . .
The incoming Turkish ambassador to Iran, Gurcan Turkoglu, is Gul's top
foreign policy adviser. Ankara recently announced its willingness to act as
an intermediary with Tehran for a resolution to the dispute over its nuclear
program.
.... Ankara's re-engagement in the region is worrying Israel (whose only
openly Muslim ally until now was Turkey), even as the Turks offer Washington
an additional channel through which to promote its Middle East initiatives
and exert pressure.
Turkish concerns - shared by the United States - are fuelling a growing
rapprochement between the U.S. and Turkey. And in the event diplomacy fails,
Turkey is one of Washington's more reliable allies in Iran's vicinity that
can help force the latter's hand. ....
For the moment, the big policy issue facing Turkey is whether Iraq will
descend into civil war. ... the transformation of Iraq's most economically
viable part into an Iranian zone of influence would turn Iran into a
powerful regional actor threatening both Turkey and Israel.
...Turkey to refocus its foreign policy emphasis in Iraq away from
....Turkmen community and toward more realistic options such as dealing with
Iraq's powerful Shiite bloc. ... .
The Turkmen, realizing that Turkey's support is waning, have panicked. ...
But ethnic symmetries may not be enough to entice Erdogan to throw the brunt
of his diplomatic support behind the small group at a time whe Jaafari
reportedly dangled the promise of expelling the 5,000 members of the Kurdish
Workers' Party from Iraq, if they continued to mount cross-border attacks
against Turkey. Furthermore, there is a natural alliance between Jaafari and
Ankara over the disputed city of Kirkuk, from where a considerable number of
Shiites and Turkmens are likely to be displaced in the event of a Kurdish
takeover.
. . ..

+++ARAB NEWS (Saudi) 25 Mar.'06:"Why Give Iran a Say on Iraq?" Amir Taheri

QUOTES FROM TEXT:
"Iran and the United States ... to begin talks on ...'measures to benefit
the Iraqi people' "
"Iraq likely to have a pluralist regime in which Shiites are a majority,
Iran may no longer face ...Sunni Arab regimes determined to challenge it"
"emergence of a Shiite dominated democracy next door may well inspire a
democratic revolution in Iran"
"may encoriage Iran's defiance of the UN resolution"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FULL TEXT:
Barring a last-minute hitch Iran and the United States are expected to begin
talks on what they have both called "measures to benefit the Iraqi people."
The euphemism is unlikely to deceive anyone. What Tehran and Washington are
really interested in is to find out each other's true intentions in Iraq.
There is no doubt that both Iran and the United States have benefited from
the demise of the Baathist regime under Saddam Hussein. The US has
eliminated an enemy that it had wounded but not killed in 1991, something
that Machiavelli had warned against almost five centuries ago. With Iraq
likely to have a pluralist regime in which Shiites are a majority, Iran may
no longer face a coalition of Sunni Arab regimes determined to challenge it
in the region.
But while US and Iranian interests in Iraq converge up to a point, the two
powers have diametrically opposite visions when it comes to the future of
Iraq, indeed of the entire Middle East.
The US wants a democratic and pro-West Iraq with a capitalist market-based
economy, and open to the new globalization trends. In his better moments
President George W. Bush has even spoken of turning Iraq into a model for
the entire Arab world, indeed for all Muslim countries. And that, of course,
is indirect competition with Iran that claims that its own system is the
ideal one for all Muslims.
Iran wants an Iraqi regime that adopts at least some aspects of Khomeinism
if only to prove that the Islamic republic in Tehran is not a historic
anomaly. The Tehran leadership is also concerned that the emergence of a
Shiite-dominated democracy next door may well inspire a democratic
revolution in Iran as well. With he center of Shiite theological authority
clearly shifting to Najaf, Iran's rulers may risk losing the religious card
they have played for the past 27 years.
The crucial question in regional politics now is whether Iraq, and beyond it
the Middle East, will be reshaped the way US wants it or remolded as Iran's
Khomeinist leaders have dreamed of since 1979.
It is against that background that it is important to know what Iran would
actually bring to the table when, and if, the promised talks materialize.
Iran has already scored a point simply by being invited by the US for talks.
Although Iran did nothing to oust Saddam Hussein, this invitation bestows on
it a stature that only a liberating power would normally have. For example,
at the end of World War II no one invited Switzerland or Poland, as
neighbors of Germany, to discuss its future.
Iran has scored yet another point by positioning itself as a power speaking
for the Iraqi people. The leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic
Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Abdul-Aziz Hakim has helped Iran's maneuver by
issuing a verbal "invitation" to enter the talks almost as a protector of
the people of Iraq. The fact that Hakim and his party have been supported by
Iran for more than a quarter of a century does not diminish the importance
of that move.
The Iranian strategy is clear from the outset. Foreign Minister Manuchehr
Mottaki has said that Iran's chief priority is to discuss the withdrawal of
the US-led coalition forces from Iraq.
Mottaki knows that the US and its allies are in Iraq under a United Nations'
mandate that will run out in December. He also knows that that mandate
cannot be renewed without the consent of the newly elected Iraqi Parliament
and government. Finally, he also knows that President George W. Bush is
under pressure from both Democrats and Republicans to bring the Iraqi
episode to an end. So, when the Americans and their allies start to leave,
as they are certain to do later this year, Iran would be able to pretend
that it was its efforts that ended the "occupation".
Iran, however, has more important ambitions in Iraq. Strategically, it sees
post-Saddam Iraq as a corridor through which it can communicate with Syria
and Lebanon that it considers as part of its broader glacis. In fact, once
Tehran's influence is established in Iraq as it is in Syria and Lebanon,
Iran would be able to project power in the Levant for the first time since
the early 7th century when the Persian Empire under Khosrow Parviz drove the
Byzantines out of Mesopotamia and what is now Syria.
It is no accident that scholars in Tehran have just rediscovered the set of
agreements that Iran had signed with the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century.
Known as the Erzerum treaties, these documents give Iran a droit de regard
(the right of oversight) over Iraq's principal Shiite centers of Najaf,
Kerbala and Kazemayn (now a suburb of Baghdad).
The agreements also enable Iran to take "appropriate action", a code word
for military intervention, if it felt that its security, or the access of
Iranian pilgrims to "holy places", was being threatened by the presence of
foreign hostile forces in southern Iraq.
If implemented those agreements could lead to the emergence of an Iranian
administration in the "holy cities" and an Iranian veto on key aspects of
Iraq's foreign policy.
Iran has already used those agreements to persuade the new Iraqi government
to sign an agreement under which more than 600,000 Iranian pilgrims would be
able to visit Iraq each year with little control from the Iraqi authorities.
The second set of documents that Tehran is now dusting up is known as the
Algiers Accords, negotiated and signed in Algiers, Geneva, Tehran and
Baghdad between 1975 and 1976. These give Iran and Iraq shared sovereignty
over the Shatt Al-Arab estuary that constitutes Iraq's principal outlet to
the open seas. The agreements, signed by Saddam Hussein as a tactical ploy
to end Iranian support for the Kurds in the 1970s, would, if fully
implemented, give Iran a chokehold on Iraq's foreign trade, including oil
exports.
Iran does not want the US to fail in Iraq. It wants the US to succeed in
eliminating all possibility of a new Sunni-dominated regime being installed
in Baghdad. But Iran wants the US to succeed at the highest possible cost,
both in blood and treasure.
It is a mystery why Washington wants to give Tehran a place at the high
table in Iraq. It is certain that the Islamic republic will continue doing
whatever it can to make life difficult for the US-led coalition. The supply
of new and more lethal explosives, smuggled into Iraq from Iran, partly via
Syria is unlikely to dry up. Nor is Tehran likely to end the training
programs launched by its Lebanese Hezbollah clients for Iraqi militants.
The decision to involve Iran in Iraqi affairs is likely to anger the United
States regional allies who have never discounted the possibility of an
Irano-American deal that might leave them in the lurch. The Arab states will
also be concerned about the possibility of Iraq's Arab identity being
diluted as a result of Iranian intervention.
The US may have made this strange move because of the experiment in
Afghanistan where talks with Iran did help speed up the defeat of the
Taleban and the creation of a new regime in Kabul.
But Iraq is not Afghanistan if only because it offers far more scope for
Iranian mischief making. The invitation to Iraq is also likely to encourage
Iran in its defiance of the United Nations on the nuclear issue. After all
if Iran is treated as a major power in one domain it cannot be "bullied" as
a weakling in another.
Has the Bush administration made its first major mistake with regard to
Iraq? It is too early to tell. But this decision may be even worse than a
mistake; it may be unnecessary. And, as Talleyrand noted almost 200 years
ago, in politics doing something that is not necessary is worse than making
a mistake.

Sue Lerner, Asssociate - IMRA

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Ha'aretz English edition fails to run Shavit's 2nd article against

Ha'aretz English edition fails to run Shavit's 2nd article against retreat
plan

Dr. Aaron Lerner 25 March 2006

Ari Shavit's March 14 article, "Olmert's arrogance", (repeated below), is
probably the most eloquent - and disturbing - attack by any Israeli against
Acting PM Olmert's retreat plan.

So when Shavit's column in the Friday 24 March Hebrew edition of Haaretz
carried a follow-up debate between Shavit and Haim Ramon, it was only
natural to expect the folks in charge of the English edition to dutifully
translate and publish the article - even if it provided strong ammunition
against their own support for retreat to the '67 lines.

But instead of running the article so that those who don't read Hebrew could
also be exposed to possibly the most interesting debate of the election
campaign, the English edition ran an old piece from earlier this week.

The Hebrew article can be found at
www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo=697984&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0In it Shavit patiently explains to Ramon that he is ignoring the profoundsignificance of Palestinian sovereignty and how if Israel retreats from thebulk of the West Bank that it is inevitable that a well armed sovereignHamas state will form and exploit its sovereignty to not only prevent Israelfrom taking the simplistic action Ramon suggests ["What kind of war willthere be? The IDF with all of its ability against 3,000 - 4,000 Hamas menbarely armed?(AL: not a typo - "3,000 - 4,000" rather than the at least50,000 - 70,000 trained armed men Hamas will now have under its control) Ifthe Palestinians create any threat I conquer the West Bank within 24hours." ] but to seriously threaten Israel's existence.================Olmert's arroganceBy Ari Shavit Haaretz 14 March 2006www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=olmert++settlers&itemNo=694172In September 2000, the Palestinians began a terror offensive against Israel.They did this because they refused to accept the Camp David proposal, whichpromised them the entire Gaza Strip and 91 percent of the West Bank inexchange for full recognition of Israel and an end to theIsraeli-Palestinian conflict. If Ehud Olmert is elected prime minister andimplements his convergence plan, then in September 2010 the Palestinianswill have sovereignty over the entire Gaza Strip and some 91 percent of theWest Bank, and all this without recognizing Israel and without ending theconflict.Thus will the national Palestinian movement fulfill the objectives of itswars and obtain a full strategic resolution against the State of Israel. Thehistory books will record Olmert's unconditional withdrawal as theunconditional surrender of Zionism. No, it will not be the end. But it willbe the beginning of the end. While relying on big money on one side and bigjournalism on the other, Olmert will lead the country to the beginning ofthe end.At first glance, Olmert's plan appears enchanting - no fear, no hesitation,and very Israeli. Here, we'll take our destiny in our own hands. Withinthree years we'll evacuate some 80,000 settlers. Within less than fiveyears, we will undergo a final disengagement from the Palestinians andconverge within the borders of a flourishing lowlands country. We willsurround our existence with a high wall, which will protect us from both thecraziness of the Land of Israel and from the threat of Palestine. And so, inone term, we will isolate ourselves from all the sickness and terrors of theMiddle East. So simple. So clear. How did we not think of this sooner. Whydid we wait so long so that the man who saved Jerusalem could also save theState of Israel.However, on second glance it becomes clear that the Olmert plan has a smallflaw: It has no Palestinians. This is a plan whose logic is simplistic andpatronizing. This is a plan for Israelis only, which ignores itsramifications on Israelis. It takes an extreme unilateral position to thepoint of absurdity, totally ignoring the fact that the conflict is bilateraland the political reality is multilateral. The plan, then, is an arrogantone, and the hubris that characterizes it is no less than the hubris of theperson who formulated it.What Olmert plans to do in the next few years is to establish an armed Hamasstate in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Via the nearly complete withdrawal, Olmertwill promise Hamas almost total control in the Palestinian state forgenerations. The Palestine of Olmert will be hostile, dissatisfied andviolent. Its founding ethos will be "We've chased them out of Ofra, we'llchase them out of Tzahala too."Since Olmert is establishing this country without first assuring itsdemilitarization, it will have significant military capability. Since he isestablishing it without removing the right of return from the agenda, itwill have a destructive claim against Israel, whose legitimacy is recognizedby the international community. The combination of political sovereignty,military power and a commitment to demanding return will transform Olmert'sHamas state into one that will endanger the very existence of the State ofIsrael.Despite the irony, the convergence plan will not implement the Bush vision,but will destroy it. It will not build a stable two-state solution, but willcreate an unstable reality in which an Islamic Palestinian statesystematically undermines the foundation of the Jewish democratic state.But it is not just the stability of Israel that Olmert is endangering. He isalso endangering the regional stability. A Hamas state will accelerateJordan's collapse. There is no chance that the Hashemite rule will stand upagainst a Palestinian state on its doorstep whose religious fervor has justsubdued the Zionists. Egypt will also be threatened. A victorious MuslimBrotherhood republic that controls a third of Jerusalem and devours theTemple Mount will be the beacon of zealotry for the Muslim Brotherhood inCairo. And in Damascus. And in Amman.And Olmert will be supporting not only anti-Israeli terror, but also theanti-Western revolutionary movement. His radical unilateral process willdisrupt the American strategy in the area and will bury U.S. PresidentGeorge W. Bush's dream of stability and democracy in the Middle East.The Land of Israel must be divided. The occupation must end. A two-statesolution is necessary. But the Hamas victory has made a two-state solutionmore distant and more complicated. Olmert's convergence plan makes itimpossible. Therefore, if the public gives him the chance to carry out hisarrogant plan, then March 28, 2006, will go down in history. History willremember it as the day that did not bring peace and did not bring security,but began the end.

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: [With text]President Abbas Delivers
a Letter to PM-designate Ismail Haniya

[With text]President Abbas Delivers a Letter to PM-designate Ismail Haniya
www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_new/english/details.asp?name=14734

GAZA, Palestine, March 25, 2006 (IPC+WAFA) -[Official PA website]
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas delivered Saturday a letter to
PM-designate Ismail Haniya about the appointments of the motion of
confidence as well as the swearing-in session. Rafiq Al-Husseini,
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' chief of staff handed Ismail
Haniya Abbas's letter in the presidential headquarters in Gaza City.

After receiving the letter, Haniya told reporters that they received a
letter today and they are going to review and study it and according to the
basic law and its provisions, the government will turn to the PLC for the
motion of confidence on Monday. Then on Thursday the swearing-in procession
will be held before president Abbas either in Gaza or in Ramallah.

He said that the government will assume its responsibilities after that in
order to run the Palestinian administration.

Earlier, the Executive Committee refused Hamas' platform led by PM-designate
Ismail Haniya and called on the movement to reshuffle its program and to
recognize the PLO as the only representative for the Palestinian people.

Meanwhile, President Abbas rebuffed any possibility of an institutional
crisis in the light of the Executive Committee's decision that refused
Hamas' platform.

Here is the full text of Abbas's letter to PM-designate Haniya:

Upon reviewing your response to my letter of assigning you forming the new
government, I have concluded that your response, along with your proposed
government program, unfortunately does not take account of the points raised
in the letter of designation.

I have stressed to you that while we are proud of our people's success in
carrying out the elections, and while we insist that the world respects the
results and we reject any attempt to punish our people for exercising their
democratic choice, these elections do not mean a break from or a reversal of
the basic tenets and the legal and political responsibilities and
commitments of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), or the program of
the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) which is its source of
legitimacy and the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people
in the homeland and the diaspora.

I have made sure, whether in the letter of designation or in our meetings,
to highlight the basic prerequisites for the success of the government in
defending the higher political interests of the Palestinian people. I have
emphasized the government's duty to safeguard the political, legal and
diplomatic achievements and gains of the Palestinian cause; to further the
standing of our cause and the rights of our people in the body of
international legitimacy; I emphasized the need to ensure the compatibility
of our positions with those of our Arab nation as expressed in the decisions
of the Arab summits.

I have also reiterated-based on my vision and my reading of the regional and
international reality-the need to avoid any positions that may isolate our
people; put our national struggle in opposition to international legitimacy.
I have also reiterated the need to avoid giving the Israeli government an
excuse to disavow its agreements, to continue with its measures and siege
against our Palestinian people, or proceed with its plans to grab our land
and deny our inalienable national rights through imposing solutions and
unilaterally drawing borders through the so-called state with provisional
borders.

I have further underscored the necessity to understand the uniqueness of our
complex situation, and to give priority to ensuring the means to support the
steadfastness of our people on our land through providing for its needs
rather than burdening it. We have no choice but to stay fast on our land
until Israel ends its occupation, we establish our independent Palestinian
station the June 4th 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, and
reach a just and agreed solution to the refugee issue based on the United
Nations General Assembly Resolution 194.

I have given the above extensive thought. While I regret that you have not
adopted what was included in the letter of designation-a stance that
prevented the formation of a national unity government-I have decided not to
use the powers vested in me according to the basic law. Instead, out of
respect for the spirit of democratic process, and to enable you to take the
full opportunity to assume responsibility, I will give you the chance to
present your government to the Legislative Council for confidence.

Here, and once your government assumes its responsibilities in accordance
with the basic law after it is granted confidence, I ask you again to adopt
the letter of designation and make the necessary corrections to your
program.

You can be sure that, out of my sense of national responsibility, I will
give all the possible support for your work. In addition, I will closely
monitor the government's performance and will continue to exercise my duties
pursuant to the mandate granted to me by the people, and in accordance to
the authorities vested in me by the basic law. I will exercise my mandate
and authority where and when needed to protect the higher interests of the
Palestinian people.

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Labor party activist electrocuted
trying to replace Likud sign with Labor sign

Labor party activist electrocuted to death

Labor activist Liad Golan, 27, dies after climbing electric pole to remove
Likud sign; Labor holds special meeting to discuss incident

Avi Cohen YNET 25 March 2006
www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3232039,00.html

Liad Golan, 27, a Labor party activist from kibbutz Beit Hashita, was
electrocuted to death Saturday on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv Highway after
climbing an electric pole to remove a Likud sign.

Several Labor party activists were posting signs along the road Saturday
afternoon near a bridge. At one point, the activists noticed a Likud sign
hanging from an electric pole. Golan decided to climb the pole and remove
the sign, a decision that led to his death.

A Magen David Adom ambulance team pronounced Golan dead at the scene. Police
launched an investigation into the incident.

An initial investigation showed Golan was able to remove the Likud sign, but
was electrocuted as he was attempting to replace it with a huge Labor party
sign.

MDA paramedic Nadav Ovadia, who was called to the scene, told Ynet: "We saw
a man lying on the ground. There were signs of serious electrocution and all
we could do was to pronounce him dead."

Labor Party Chairman Amir Peretz canceled a planned tour Saturday in the
wake of the incident. Senior Labor officials were set to meet Saturday to
discuss the mishap. The party may also cancel the concluding election
convention scheduled for Sunday.

Peretz spoke with Golan's mother, and said that "the party shall be with the
family in the rough times ahead."

Peretz also expressed his condolences and told her the party mourns her son,
who was, according to Peretz, an ideologist at heart.

The Electric Company issued the following statement: "We warned before, both
the parties and the central Elections Committee, against activists climbing
electric poles. Sadly, not all parties heeded the warnings."

Attila Somfalvi contributed to the story

First Published: 03.25.06, 15:37
Latest Update: 03.25.06, 20:14

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Qassam hits Ashkelon structure - no cigar

Qassam hits Ashkelon structure

[IMRA: It is Israeli policy to essentially allow the Palestinians to
continue to try to carry out a successful "mega attack" until they succeed.

Before IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz moved from the Air Force it was not
clear if he would acclimate. The IAF treats "near misses" with the same
seriousness as a "hit". CoS Halutz has definitely acclimated.]

Rocket launched from Gaza damages building in town's industrial zone; no
injuries reported in attack. Islamic Jihad claims responsibility
Hanan Greenberg YNET 25 March 2006
www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3232092,00.html

A Qassam rocket landed Saturday evening in southern Ashkelon, causing some
damage to one of the structures at the area. No injuries were reported in
the attack. The IDF reported that another rocket was launched at Israel's
direction, but that its landing site has yet to be identified.

The Islamic Jihad's military wing, the al-Quds Brigades, claimed
responsibility for the rockets' attack. The organization pledged this
weekend it will prove Army Chief Dan Halutz that "the Palestinian resistance
will continue to target Israel," in response to Halutz's statement the group
was growing weak.

Members of the organization said that as far as they were concerned, the
series of responses by the al-Quds Brigades to the targeted killings against
its activists in the last few weeks, have not ended.

Meanwhile, army officers claimed that the Palestinian police were doing next
to nothing in a bid to counter the rocket threat. They claimed that while
Hamas was not taking active part in launching the Qassams, it participated
in transferring the rockets "behind the scenes."

Hundreds of Qassams were fired at the western Negev region in southern
Israel in the last months, with one of the terrorists' primary targets being
Ashkelon's industrial zone, where several strategic sites - including a
power plant - are located.

At the beginning of the month, a Qassam launched by the Islamic Jihad landed
in a security-sensitive structure south of the town. One employee suffered
shock and was treated by Magen David Adom paramedics at the scene. Slight
damage was caused to the building itself in the incident.

Factories in southern Ashkelon have recently been connected to the Red Dawn
alert system that identifies the launching of rockets at the area's
direction.

'We are an enlightened country'

IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz was asked recently why the army fails in
putting an end to the attacks from Gaza, and replied that "life means
choosing between alternatives. Some would say, 'let's re-conquer Gaza,'
because that's one of the ways to fight this threat."

"I always remind people that we were inside the Strip up until eight months
ago, and even when we were there we were unable to give a comprehensive
solution to each Qassam attack. This is because we conduct ourselves like an
enlightened country, and try to refrain from crossing lines in our
operations," Halutz added.

First Published: 03.25.06, 18:46
Latest Update: 03.25.06, 19:

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Ha'aretz English edition fails to run Shavit's
2nd article against retreat plan

Ha'aretz English edition fails to run Shavit's 2nd article against retreat
plan

Dr. Aaron Lerner 25 March 2006

Ari Shavit's March 14 article, "Olmert's arrogance", (repeated below), is
probably the most eloquent - and disturbing - attack by any Israeli against
Acting PM Olmert's retreat plan.

So when Shavit's column in the Friday 24 March Hebrew edition of Haaretz
carried a follow-up debate between Shavit and Haim Ramon, it was only
natural to expect the folks in charge of the English edition to dutifully
translate and publish the article - even if it provided strong ammunition
against their own support for retreat to the '67 lines.

But instead of running the article so that those who don't read Hebrew could
also be exposed to possibly the most interesting debate of the election
campaign, the English edition ran an old piece from earlier this week.

The Hebrew article can be found at

www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo=697984&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0In it Shavit patiently explains to Ramon that he is ignoring theprofoundsignificance of Palestinian sovereignty and how if Israel retreatsfrom the bulk of the West Bank that it is inevitable that a well armedsovereignHamas state will form and exploit its sovereignty to not onlyprevent Israelfrom taking the simplistic action Ramon suggests ["What kindof war will there be? The IDF with all of its ability against 3,000 - 4,000Hamas menbarely armed?(AL: not a typo - "3,000 - 4,000" rather than the atleast 50,000 - 70,000 trained armed men Hamas will now have under itscontrol) If the Palestinians create any threat I conquer the West Bankwithin 24 hours." ] but to seriously threaten Israel's existence.================Olmert's arroganceBy Ari Shavit Haaretz 14 March 2006www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=olmert++settlers&itemNo=694172In September 2000, the Palestinians began a terror offensive against Israel.They did this because they refused to accept the Camp David proposal, whichpromised them the entire Gaza Strip and 91 percent of the West Bank inexchange for full recognition of Israel and an end to theIsraeli-Palestinian conflict. If Ehud Olmert is elected prime minister andimplements his convergence plan, then in September 2010 the Palestinianswill have sovereignty over the entire Gaza Strip and some 91 percent of theWest Bank, and all this without recognizing Israel and without ending theconflict.Thus will the national Palestinian movement fulfill the objectives of itswars and obtain a full strategic resolution against the State of Israel. Thehistory books will record Olmert's unconditional withdrawal as theunconditional surrender of Zionism. No, it will not be the end. But it willbe the beginning of the end. While relying on big money on one side and bigjournalism on the other, Olmert will lead the country to the beginning ofthe end.At first glance, Olmert's plan appears enchanting - no fear, no hesitation,and very Israeli. Here, we'll take our destiny in our own hands. Withinthree years we'll evacuate some 80,000 settlers. Within less than fiveyears, we will undergo a final disengagement from the Palestinians andconverge within the borders of a flourishing lowlands country. We willsurround our existence with a high wall, which will protect us from both thecraziness of the Land of Israel and from the threat of Palestine. And so, inone term, we will isolate ourselves from all the sickness and terrors of theMiddle East. So simple. So clear. How did we not think of this sooner. Whydid we wait so long so that the man who saved Jerusalem could also save theState of Israel.However, on second glance it becomes clear that the Olmert plan has a smallflaw: It has no Palestinians. This is a plan whose logic is simplistic andpatronizing. This is a plan for Israelis only, which ignores itsramifications on Israelis. It takes an extreme unilateral position to thepoint of absurdity, totally ignoring the fact that the conflict is bilateraland the political reality is multilateral. The plan, then, is an arrogantone, and the hubris that characterizes it is no less than the hubris of theperson who formulated it.What Olmert plans to do in the next few years is to establish an armed Hamasstate in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Via the nearly complete withdrawal, Olmertwill promise Hamas almost total control in the Palestinian state forgenerations. The Palestine of Olmert will be hostile, dissatisfied andviolent. Its founding ethos will be "We've chased them out of Ofra, we'llchase them out of Tzahala too."Since Olmert is establishing this country without first assuring itsdemilitarization, it will have significant military capability. Since he isestablishing it without removing the right of return from the agenda, itwill have a destructive claim against Israel, whose legitimacy is recognizedby the international community. The combination of political sovereignty,military power and a commitment to demanding return will transform Olmert'sHamas state into one that will endanger the very existence of the State ofIsrael.Despite the irony, the convergence plan will not implement the Bush vision,but will destroy it. It will not build a stable two-state solution, but willcreate an unstable reality in which an Islamic Palestinian statesystematically undermines the foundation of the Jewish democratic state.But it is not just the stability of Israel that Olmert is endangering. He isalso endangering the regional stability. A Hamas state will accelerateJordan's collapse. There is no chance that the Hashemite rule will stand upagainst a Palestinian state on its doorstep whose religious fervor has justsubdued the Zionists. Egypt will also be threatened. A victorious MuslimBrotherhood republic that controls a third of Jerusalem and devours theTemple Mount will be the beacon of zealotry for the Muslim Brotherhood inCairo. And in Damascus. And in Amman.And Olmert will be supporting not only anti-Israeli terror, but also theanti-Western revolutionary movement. His radical unilateral process willdisrupt the American strategy in the area and will bury U.S. PresidentGeorge W. Bush's dream of stability and democracy in the Middle East.The Land of Israel must be divided. The occupation must end. A two-statesolution is necessary. But the Hamas victory has made a two-state solutionmore distant and more complicated. Olmert's convergence plan makes itimpossible. Therefore, if the public gives him the chance to carry out hisarrogant plan, then March 28, 2006, will go down in history. History willremember it as the day that did not bring peace and did not bring security,but began the end.

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Ha'aretz English edition fails to run Shavit's
2nd article against retreat plan

Ha'aretz English edition fails to run Shavit's 2nd article against
retreat plan

Dr. Aaron Lerner 25 March 2006

Ari Shavit's March 14 article, "Olmert's arrogance", (repeated
below), is probably the most eloquent - and disturbing - attack
by any Israeli against Acting PM Olmert's retreat plan.

So when Shavit's column in the Friday 24 March Hebrew edition of
Haaretz carried a follow-up debate between Shavit and Haim Ramon,
it was only natural to expect the folks in charge of the English
edition to dutifully translate and publish the article - even if
it provided strong ammunition against their own support for retreat
to the '67 lines.

But instead of running the article so that those who don't read
Hebrew could also be exposed to possibly the most interesting
debate of the election campaign, the English edition ran an old
piece from earlier this week.

The Hebrew article can be found at

www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo=697984&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0

In it Shavit patiently explains to Ramon that he is ignoring
the profound significance of Palestinian sovereignty and how if
Israel retreats from the bulk of the West Bank that it is
inevitable that a well armed sovereign Hamas state will form and
exploit its sovereignty to not only prevent Israel from taking the
simplistic action Ramon suggests ["What kindof war will there be?
The IDF with all of its ability against 3,000 - 4,000 Hamas men
barely armed?(AL: not a typo - "3,000 - 4,000" rather than the
at least 50,000 - 70,000 trained armed men Hamas will now have
under its control) If the Palestinians create any threat I
conquer the West Bankwithin 24 hours." ] but to seriously threaten
Israel's existence

.================

Olmert's arrogance By Ari Shavit Haaretz 14 March 2006

www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=olmert++settlers&itemNo=694172

In September 2000, the Palestinians began a terror offensive
against Israel. They did this because they refused to accept the
Camp David proposal, which promised them the entire Gaza Strip and
91 percent of the West Bank in exchange for full recognition of
Israel and an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If Ehud
Olmert is elected prime minister and implements his convergence
plan, then in September 2010 the Palestinians will have sovereignty
over the entire Gaza Strip and some 91 percent of the West Bank,
and all this without recognizing Israel and without ending the
conflict.

Thus will the national Palestinian movement fulfill the objectives
of its wars and obtain a full strategic resolution against the
State of Israel. The history books will record Olmert's
unconditional withdrawal as the unconditional surrender of Zionism.
No, it will not be the end. But it will be the beginning of
the end. While relying on big money on one side and big
journalism on the other, Olmert will lead the country to the
beginning of the end.

At first glance, Olmert's plan appears enchanting - no fear, no
hesitation, and very Israeli. Here, we'll take our destiny in our
own hands. Within three years we'll evacuate some 80,000 settlers.
Within less than five years, we will undergo a final disengagement
from the Palestinians and converge within the borders of a
flourishing lowlands country. We will surround our existence with a
high wall, which will protect us from both the craziness of the
Land of Israel and from the threat of Palestine. And so, in one
term, we will isolate ourselves from all the sickness and terrors
of the Middle East. So simple. So clear. How did we not think
of this sooner. Why did we wait so long so that the man who
saved Jerusalem could also save the State of Israel.

However, on second glance it becomes clear that the Olmert plan
has a small flaw: It has no Palestinians. This is a plan whose
logic is simplistic and patronizing. This is a plan for Israelis
only, which ignores its ramifications on Israelis. It takes an
extreme unilateral position to the point of absurdity, totally
ignoring the fact that the conflict is bilateral and the political
reality is multilateral. The plan, then, is an arrogant one, and
the hubris that characterizes it is no less than the hubris of
the person who formulated it.

What Olmert plans to do in the next few years is to establish
an armed Hamas state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Via the nearly
complete withdrawal, Olmert will promise Hamas almost total control
in the Palestinian state for generations. The Palestine of Olmert
will be hostile, dissatisfied and violent. Its founding ethos will
be "We've chased them out of Ofra, we'll chase them out of
Tzahala too."

Since Olmert is establishing this country without first assuring
its demilitarization, it will have significant military capability.
Since he is establishing it without removing the right of return
from the agenda, it will have a destructive claim against Israel,
whose legitimacy is recognized by the international community. The
combination of political sovereignty, military power and a
commitment to demanding return will transform Olmert's Hamas state
into one that will endanger the very existence of the State of
Israel.

Despite the irony, the convergence plan will not implement the
Bush vision, but will destroy it. It will not build a stable
two-state solution, but will create an unstable reality in which
an Islamic Palestinian state systematically undermines the foundation
of the Jewish democratic state.

But it is not just the stability of Israel that Olmert is
endangering. He is also endangering the regional stability. A Hamas
state will accelerate Jordan's collapse. There is no chance that
the Hashemite rule will stand up against a Palestinian state on
its doorstep whose religious fervor has just subdued the Zionists.
Egypt will also be threatened. A victorious Muslim Brotherhood
republic that controls a third of Jerusalem and devours the Temple
Mount will be the beacon of zealotry for the Muslim Brotherhood
in Cairo. And in Damascus. And in Amman.

And Olmert will be supporting not only anti-Israeli terror, but
also the anti-Western revolutionary movement. His radical unilateral
process will disrupt the American strategy in the area and will
bury U.S. President George W. Bush's dream of stability and
democracy in the Middle East.

The Land of Israel must be divided. The occupation must end. A
two-state solution is necessary. But the Hamas victory has made a
two-state solution more distant and more complicated. Olmert's
convergence plan makes it impossible. Therefore, if the public
gives him the chance to carry out his arrogant plan, then March
28, 2006, will go down in history. History will remember it as
the day that did not bring peace and did not bring security, but
began the end.

------------------------------

From: imra-owner@imra.org.il
Subject: IMRA Subscription Info

--------------------------------------------
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il

For free regular subscription:
Subscribe at no charge: imra-subscribe@imra.org.il
Unsubscribe: imra-unsubscribe@imra.org.il

For free daily digest subscription:
Subscribe at no charge: imra-subscribe-digest@imra.org.il
Unsubscribe: imra-unsubscribe@imra.org.il

For a copy of all reports distributed for a given day please send a
message to:

monday@imra.org.il tuesday@imra.org.il wednesday@imra.org.il
thursday@imra.org.il friday@imra.org.il
saturday@imra.org.il sunday@imra.org.il
--------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of [imra] Daily digest - Volume: 2 Issue: 1356 (15 messages)
**********