Palestinians killed near Israeli border

This video from the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions says about itself:

Jeff Halper (director of ICAHD) is detained while he tries to reach the buldozer during the demolition done by the Israeli municipality of the Hamdan family in Anata, Jerusalem.

Israeli troops killed at least 12 protesters in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Syria today as the Palestinian people and their supporters rallied to mark the anniversary of the forced displacement of Palestinians from their land in 1948: here. At least 15 dead: here. 21 dead: here.

Mr Netanyahu seems to aspire to become the Assad of Israel …


The International Labour Organisation (ILO) called on Tel Aviv to lift the blockade of Gaza on Tuesday after a report showed it is fuelling unemployment, keeping pay low and undermining development: here.

Solidarity demonstration with Moroccan pro-democracy movement at Domplein in Utrecht, the Netherlands, on Sunday 22 May, 15:00: here.

7 thoughts on “Palestinians killed near Israeli border

  1. Fom AAPSO:

    The International Women’s Day 2011

    About half of the Palestinian society are females

    The estimated population at end of 2010 was 4.1 million of whom 2.1 million are males and 2.0 million females. In addition, males comprise 50.8% of total population compared to 49.8% females. In other words; for every 100 person, there are 49 females. The sex ratio was 103.1 at end of 2010.
    More than half of the females aged 15 years and above are married.
    Of every 10 females aged 15 years and above there are 6 married.
    Decline in the illiteracy rates of women
    During 2010, about 8 out of every 100 females aged 15 years and above are illiterate; which is four times higher compared with males in the same age group. In the same context, the gender gap has decreased during the past 10 years where the percent increase in the literacy rates of females 15 years or above is about four times higher than that of males during the period 2000-2010. However, literacy rate among males still higher than the literacy rate of females.
    Limited participation of women in the labor force
    Despite the rise in the participation rate of women in the labor force during the past ten years, still the rate is considered low; 15% in 2010 compared to 10% in 2001. Participation rate of men in the labor force is still four times higher than that of females.
    Higher unemployment rate
    Participation of women in the labor force is considered important for sustainable development. But the rate of increase in unemployment rates between 2001 and 2010 was 91 %. Although unemployment rate among men and women increased in general, the gender gap decreased in 2010 compared to 2001. The real average daily wage for women was 73 NIS compared to 60 NIS for men in 2010, with a discrepancy by 13 shekels for men
    Poverty rates are higher among households headed by men
    In 2009, the poverty rate among households headed by women are lower than households headed by men; 20.2%, 22.7% respectively. A high incidence of extreme poverty among households headed by men compared to households headed by women was reported, and this is due to the fact that, the humanitarian aids go to the households headed by females and the average household size among households headed by females is less than households headed by males.
    Palestinian women: Partners in the struggle for liberation
    There are 34 Palestinian women in Israeli jails including 20 under sentenced terms (5 under life sentence), 12 are still waiting for trail and 2 in administrative detention.
    Palestinian Women: Part of the decision making process
    The participation of women in the political life and in the decision making have witnessed development as they started to compete with men and occupy high level positions in the institutions of the PNA.
    There are 5 female ministers out of 22 ministers in the Palestinian cabinet; one female member in the executive committee for the Palestinian Liberation Organization; first female president 2009 of Stock Exchange Authority, first female governor for Ramallah and Al-Bireh; and first female as president of non ministerial government institution. These appointments reflect the success of Palestinian women in leading large institutions in effective and professional manner.
    Palestinian Women: Less opportunities to reach high positions in the public sector. The presentation of women as decision makers in the general administration of the PNA is still marginal. Females occupy about 4% of Assistant Undersecretary positions in the ministries of the PNA compared to 32% of positions with grade 1-10. Females represent about 31 % of total employees in the public sector.




    On an old anniversary, a new sense that change is possible
    Jonathan Cook
    May 17, 2011

    “The scenes of Palestinian defiance on Israel’s borders will fuel the imaginations of Palestinians everywhere to start thinking the impossible – just as the Tahrir Square protests galvanised Egyptians into believing they could remove their dictator.”

    They are extraordinary scenes. Film shot on mobile phones captured the moment on Sunday when at least 1,000 Palestinian refugees marched across no-man’s land to one of the most heavily protected borders in the world, the one separating Syria from the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

    Waving Palestinian flags, the marchers braved a minefield, then tore down a series of fences, allowing more than 100 to run into Israeli-controlled territory. As they embraced Druze villagers on the other side, voices could be heard saying: “This is what liberation looks like.”

    Unlike previous years, this Nakba Day was not simply a commemoration of the catastrophe that befell the Palestinians in 1948, when their homeland was forcibly reinvented as the Jewish state. It briefly reminded Palestinians that, despite their long-enforced dispersion, they still have the potential to forge a common struggle against Israel.

    As Israel violently cracked down on Sunday’s protests on many fronts – in the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem and on the borders with Syria and Lebanon – it looked less like a military superpower and more like the proverbial boy with his finger in the dam.

    The Palestinian “Arab Spring” is arriving and Israel has no diplomatic or political strategy to deal with it. Instead on Sunday, Israel used the only weapon in its current arsenal – brute force – against unarmed demonstrators.

    Along the northern borders, at least 14 protesters were killed and dozens wounded, both at Majdal al Shams in the Golan and near Maroun al-Ras in Lebanon.

    In Gaza, a teenager was shot dead and more than 100 other demonstrators wounded as they massed at crossing points. At Qalandiya, the main checkpoint Israel created to bar West Bank Palestinians from reaching Jerusalem, at least 40 protesters were badly injured. There were clashes in major West Bank towns too.

    And inside Israel, the country’s Palestinian minority took their own Nakba march for the first time into the heart of Israel, waving Palestinian flags in Jaffa, the once-famous Palestinian city that has been transformed since 1948 into a minor suburb of Tel Aviv.

    With characteristic obtuseness, Israel’s leaders identified Iranian “fingerprints” on the day’s events – as though Palestinians lacked enough grievances of their own to stage protests.

    But, in truth, Israeli intelligence has warned for months that mass demonstrations of this kind were inevitable, stoked by the intransigence of Israel’s right-wing government in the face of both Washington’s renewed interest in creating a Palestinian state and of the Arab Spring’s mood of “change is possible”.

    Following in the footsteps of Egyptian and Tunisian demonstrators, ordinary Palestinians used the new social media to organise and coordinate their defiance – in their case challenging the walls, fences and checkpoints Israel has erected everywhere to separate them. Twitter, not Tehran, was the guiding hand behind these demonstrations.

    Although the protests are not yet a third intifada, they hint at what may be coming. Or, as one senior Israeli commander warned, they looked ominously like a “warm-up” for September, when the newly unified Palestinian leadership is threatening to defy Israel and the United States and seek recognition at the United Nations of Palestinian statehood inside the 1967 borders.

    Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, alluded to similar concerns when he cautioned: “We are just at the start of this matter and it could be that we’ll face far more complex challenges.”

    There are several lessons, none of them comfortable, for Israel to draw from the weekend’s clashes.

    The first is that the Arab Spring cannot be dealt with simply by battening down the hatches. The upheavals facing Israel’s Arab neighbours mean these regimes no longer have the legitimacy to decide their own Palestinian populations’ fates according to narrow self-interest.

    Just as the post-Mubarak government in Egypt is now easing rather than enforcing the blockade on Gaza, the Syrian regime’s precarious position makes it far less able or willing to restrain, let alone shoot at, Palestinian demonstrators massing on Israel’s borders.

    The second is that Palestinians have absorbed the meaning of the recent reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah. In establishing a unity government, the two rival factions have belatedly realised that they cannot make headway against Israel as long as they are politically and geographically divided.

    Ordinary Palestinians are drawing the same conclusion: in the face of tanks and fighter jets, Palestinian strength lies in a unified national liberation movement that refuses to be defined by Israel’s policies of fragmentation.

    The third lesson is that Israel has relied on relative quiet on its borders to enforce the occupations of the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza. The peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, in particular, have allowed the Israeli army to divert its energies into controlling the Palestinians under its rule.

    But the question is whether Israel has the manpower to deal with coordinated and sustained Palestinian revolts on multiple fronts. Can it withstand such pressure without the resort to mass slaughter of unarmed Palestinian protesters?

    The fourth is that the Palestinian refugees are not likely to remain quiet if their interests are sidelined either by Israel, or by a Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations in September that fails to address refugees’ concerns.

    The protesters in Syria and Lebanon showed that they will not be pushed to the margins of the Palestinian Arab Spring. That message will not be lost on either Hamas or Fatah as they begin negotiations to develop a shared strategy over the next few months.

    And the fifth lesson is that the scenes of Palestinian defiance on Israel’s borders will fuel the imaginations of Palestinians everywhere to start thinking the impossible – just as the Tahrir Square protests galvanised Egyptians into believing they could remove their dictator.

    Israel is in a diplomatic and strategic dead end. This weekend it may have got its first taste of the likely future.

    Jonathan Cook is The National’s correspondent in Nazareth. His latest book is Disappearing Palestine



    Did Obama’s big speech offer any hope for Palestine?
    Submitted by Ali Abunimah on Thu, 05/19/2011 – 14:59

    “It is shocking that a president who constantly boasts that he is only in the White House because of the victories of the US Civil Rights movement against vile Jim Crow racism would endorse Israel’s demand to be allowed to discriminate against Palestinians. . . . As recent months have shown throughout the region, the fates of nations are in the hands of their own citizens, not those of the American president.”

    The New York Times was quick to spin Obama’s speech in ‘historic’ terms

    Obama Endorses 1967 Borders for Israel’ as part of a ‘Broad Speech Rejecting Status Quo in the Middle East’ — that was the instant spin on the front of The New York Times website within minutes of the president speaking.

    But while President Barack Obama laid out in a little bit more detail a US ‘vision’ of what ‘peace’ would look like in his much anticipated speech on US policy in the Middle East and North Africa, there was precious little new.

    Moreover, the speech affirmed that the United States will not take any effective action to advance its vision of a two-state solution.

    The president covered broadly the uprisings in the Arab world and the American response to them, but I will look at the sections on Palestine — not necessarily in the order of delivery, but by theme.

    The 1967 lines

    What the president actually said was:

    We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.

    There is a world of difference between ‘the 1967 lines’ and ‘based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.’ It is sort of like the difference between ‘a true story’ and a Hollywood movie ‘based on a true story.’

    As the Palestine Papers showed, US-brokered negotiations for years were predicated on trying to reach such a result, and despite unprecedented Palestinian concessions agreeing to allow Israel to annex most of its settlements, no agreement could be reached.

    Although it is true that the Obama administration previously adamantly refused to mention the term ‘1967 lines,’ its doing so now is couched in such a vague formula that it does not contradict President George W. Bush’s April 2004 pledge on behalf of the United States to support Israel’s annexation of its West Bank settlements.

    Moreover, as Palestinian Authority (PA) ‘chief negotiator’ Saeb Erekat recently told The Electronic Intifada, PA leader Mahmoud Abbas remains fully committed to ‘land swaps’ to allow Israel to keep its settlements even if the UN recognizes a Palestinian state ‘on the 1967 line.’

    Shortly after Obama’s speech, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a grand-standing statement rejecting the 1967 borders as ‘indefensible.’ He needn’t worry. There were enough loopholes in Obama’s speech to drive several large settlement blocs and perhaps even the entire Jordan Valley through.

    Israel as a ‘Jewish state’

    Obama has done it before, but once again he explicitly endorsed Israel’s demand to be recognized as a ‘Jewish state’:

    a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

    It is shocking that a president who constantly boasts that he is only in the White House because of the victories of the US Civil Rights movement against vile Jim Crow racism would endorse Israel’s demand to be allowed to discriminate against Palestinians. I explained in detail why Israel’s demand to be recognized as a ‘Jewish state’ is totally incompatible with democratic principles and human rights in a 2009 article in The Nation:

    If Israel has a ‘right to exist as a Jewish state,’ then what can it legitimately do if Palestinians living under its control ‘violate’ this right by having ‘too many’ non-Jewish babies? Can Israel expel non-Jews, fine them, strip them of citizenship or limit the number of children they can have? It is impossible to think of a ‘remedy’ that does not do outrageous violence to universal human rights principles.

    And indeed, recognizing Israel’s ‘right’ consigns not only Palestinian refugees to the trash heap, but Israel’s own 1.4 million Palestinian citizens whom leading Israeli politicians like Kadima party leader Tzipi Livni and foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman view as a fifth column and hope to expel or denationalize.

    Obama made a nod to this kind of racism when he warned that ‘The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River.’ This was a coded reference to what Israelis openly term the ‘demographic threat’ to a Jewish majority posed by the reality that Palestinians are once again becoming the majority population throughout historic Palestine. This is due to natural growth of Palestinians, a lower Israeli Jewish birthrate and the dearth of Jews around the world who wish to settle in historic Palestine.

    In my 2009 article, I explained in American terms why this is unacceptable and racist:

    What if we apply Israel’s claim to the United States? Because of the rapid growth of the Latino population in the past decade, Texas and California no longer have white majorities. Could either state declare that it has ‘a right to exist as a white-majority state’ and take steps to limit the rights of non-whites? Could the United States declare itself officially a Christian nation and force Jews, Muslims or Hindus to pledge allegiance to a flag that bears a cross? While such measures may appeal to a tiny number of extremists, they would be unthinkable to anyone upholding twenty-first-century constitutional principles.

    Yet this is precisely the nightmare vision Obama is endorsing for Israel which has become increasingly bold in its passage of new laws discriminating against non-Jews, and is in the grip of state-funded rabbis calling for Jews to shun and boycott non-Jews and refuse to rent or sell homes to them.


    The president said:

    the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel: How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.

    On its face this might appear to be a softening of Obama’s long-standing rejectionism of any dealings with Hamas in that he’s not calling for an immediate aid cut-off to the Palestinian Authority. He appears to be giving the Palestinians time. But it still looks certain that the ultimate US response will depend on whether Hamas submits — as Fatah has done — to Quartet conditions.

    Always more sensitive to Israelis

    If this was a speech intended to woo an Arab audience, then it is notable that Obama displayed the typical bias characteristic of American officials. He was very graphic and vivid about Israeli suffering and victimhood, while vague and evasive about the vastly greater terror Palestinians have experienced under Israeli rule. Reflecting on decades of conflict, Obama said:

    For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could be blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them.

    Aside from its visceral language, this formulation feeds the myth that hostility to Israel is primarily a result of Arabs being ‘taught to hate,’ when in fact if Arabs do hate Israel it is a result of Israeli actions. Israel teaches Arabs to hate Israel. Contrast the president’s words on the other side:

    For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own.

    That’s it? Toward the end of the speech, the president did mention ‘the Israeli father whose son was killed by Hamas’ and ‘a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza’ — but this was only to offer an example of a Palestinian who decided to let bygones be bygones despite Israel’s ongoing actions.

    The president would never dream of actually supporting efforts to hold Israel accountable. Indeed, he vowed:

    Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums.

    Clearly the president cannot risk offering sympathy to Palestinians proportionate to their actual suffering. As he has learned before, this would risk offending the Israel lobby which demands that American politicians always portray Israel as the principal victim. Recall that during the 2008 campaign Obama once accidentally let slip that ‘Nobody is suffering more than Palestinians’ but later ‘clarified’ that he meant they were suffering at the hands of their own leaders, not Israel.

    Obama vows to continue its inaction and condemns Palestinians taking action

    Putting the merits of Obama’s ‘vision’ aside, what will the president actually do to advance it? Before he laid out the details, Obama said:

    Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them — not by the United States; not by anybody else.

    What this means in translation is that the United States will not put any pressure on Israel to change its behavior — such as forcing it to stop building settlements. But Obama will continue to support lop-sided ‘negotiations’ between local superpower Israel and a Palestinian Authority that is actually dependent on Israel for its mere survival (as Israel’s recent withholding of PA tax funds shows). No peace, let along a just one, can emerge from such ‘negotiations.’

    Palestinians must sit on their hands

    During his speech, the president also warned:

    For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

    The reference to ‘delegitimization’ appears to be a coded condemnation of the growing boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, a growing nonviolent campaign to pressure Israel to respect Palestinian human rights. That’s out.

    The bid to get Palestine recognized as a state is a desperate effort by the PA to seek international support in the face of intransigent US bias toward Israel. That’s out too.

    Next the president tells Palestinians to reject ‘terror.’ Ok, fair enough. And indeed elsewhere in his speech Obama was fulsome in his praise for ‘nonviolence.’

    But what happened when tens of thousands of Palestinians peacefully marched for their human rights, including their right to return to Palestine even if they are not Jewish, last Sunday on Nakba Day? Israel gunned down more than a dozen people and the White House endorsed its actions.

    So as far as Obama is concerned Palestinians have no options but to turn to negotiations that have proven utterly fruitless as even he acknowledged.

    Soon after Obama was elected in 2008, I predicted that his tenure — despite high expectations everywhere else — would not produce any progress toward the mythical ‘two-state solution.’ I see no reason to change that assessment.

    But I concluded then, as I do now, that ‘This does not however mean that the situation will remain static or that those pursuing a just peace have no recourse for action.’

    Indeed as recent months have shown throughout the region, the fates of nations are in the hands of their own citizens, not those of the American president.



    Time to tear down the fences
    Rahela Mizrahi
    The Electronic Intifada
    Tel Aviv
    28 May 2011

    “Last week, behind the fence of my childhood, Palestinian refugees gathered to demand return. They protesters looked and sounded exactly like the revolutionaries of Cairo’s Tahrir square.”

    I spent a part of my youth in a kibbutz very close to southern Lebanese village Maroun al-Ras, where the historic march of return of Palestinian refugees took place earlier this month.

    The kibbutz was surrounded by fences and more fences. Every night in the children’s house, another member of the kibbutz was guarding us, sleeping with an Uzi gun nearby his bed. In this house, away from our parents, boys were raised Spartan tough to be the next pilots and elite unit warriors of the Israeli army, and the girls were raised very freely, in order to supply the needs of the future warriors. Growing up in such an unorthodox environment appears to be natural if you do not know any other type of life.

    Living on the lands of the Palestinian village Kafr Birim, some information about its expelled inhabitants was leaked to us through the demonstrations that demanded the right of return. Hanna and Atallah, expelled from the village, actually built the kibbutz. Atallah’s handsome sons, who worked with him, were transparent to us. We were raised not to see them. I noticed the elder because he looked exactly like my cousin from Jerusalem.

    As a teenager I was distressed by the Ikrith and Birim expulsions. The Israeli military occupied the two villages toward the end of 1948 and asked the inhabitants to leave for a period of two weeks only, and then come back. They left their villages and were never allowed to return.

    It was obvious to me that the villages’ residents should be allowed to return. Meanwhile, nothing was mentioned about the other refugees, the vast majority who were expelled during the Nakba — the expulsion of approximately 750,000 Palestinians in 1948. Some said that Birim and Ikrith residents could return, for they are Christians. But what about the “legal precedent?” Precedent for what? That was not a question to ask. Ikrith and Birim functioned as a perfect camouflage over the entire story: the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

    Last week, images from Maroun al-Ras took me back to my youth, when after learning exactly what happened since 1948, my solidarity crossed all the way over to the “other” side. Visiting my remaining family in the kibbutz, I am now met by electric fences, and the automatic gates no longer look natural. By committing the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the kibbutz’s founders predestined their grandchildren to live behind fences forever. According to an Arabic proverb, a thief does not sleep at night, and will not allow anyone else to sleep.

    Last week, behind the fence of my childhood, Palestinian refugees gathered to demand return. They protesters looked and sounded exactly like the revolutionaries of Cairo’s Tahrir square. As with the uprising that began in Egypt on 25 January, I could not stop watching the exciting events in Maroun al-Ras, Majdal Shams, Qalandiya and Gaza, wishing I was part of it. Just take down the fences, I thought.

    The refugees will one day return, but I am afraid that rivers of blood will be flooded by then. Declaring the immediate return of all refugees and replacing the apartheid state with a democratic state looks to me the most reasonable thing to do right now. But the supremacist will never give up his privileges voluntarily.

    And that is exactly what one of the bravest refugees that we saw this month, Hassan Hijazi, told the Israeli press: Palestine will return to its owners only by force.

    Hassan Hijazi crossed the Syrian border to the heart of the Zionist project: the white city of Tel Aviv. For a day he wandered around his hometown, Jaffa, a few years before its expected complete Judaization (gentrification) by demolition, expulsions, kicking out its Arab residents — most of them already displaced from the neighboring villages that Israel demolished in 1948.

    The new residents are liberal Ashkenazi Jewish Israelis. Fake co-existence projects were the first steps of this latest invasion, serving the new white inhabitants of Jaffa. Now these new residents complain about the voices of the mosque muezzin and the Orthodox church band.

    Hassan Hijazi reminded Israelis that he is not going to give up his hometown of Jaffa. For now, Tel Aviv exists as a European colonial bubble protected by the human shield of Sderot, the violent settlers in the West Bank and Jewish-Arab Mizrahim pushed by white gentrification to settlements such as Maale Adumin and Pisgat Zeev. But that bubble, surrounded by fences and more fences, is soon to pop.

    Welcome home to Jaffa, Hassan Hijazi — the first returning refugee!

    Rahela Mizrahi is a member of a family of Arab Jews which has lived for several generations in Jerusalem. She has a degree in fine arts from the Betzalel Academy in Jerusalem and a degree in Arabic literature and language from Tel Aviv University. In 2006 she signed the petition calling for the cultural boycott of Israel. She lives and works in Tel Aviv.


  5. Ex-Mossad chief: Purity of arms eroded

    In interview with Israel Army Radio Zvi Zamir criticizes decision to open fire on Syrian protestors on ‘Naksa Day,’ discusses recent remarks made by Meir Dagan

    Published: 06.09.11, 13:27 / Israel News

    Zvi Zamir, Israel’s Mossad chief in the years 1968-1974 is criticizing the government over its way of handling the ‘Naksa Day’ events which saw 23 Syrian protestors killed.

    In an interview with Israel Army Radio, Zamir attacked the decision to open fire at the Syrian protestors who tried to breach the border fence and said: “I’m concerned by the fact that soldiers, my grandchildren, are firing at unarmed people.”

    Zamir said: “I believe that if the barbed wire fence was 30 meters (100 foot) wide then they wouldn’t be able to pass through it and we could have prevented the events without opening fire. We are eroding the purity of arms.”

    During the interview, Zamir also addressed the “Dagan affair” that broke 10 days ago following comments made by former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan. Zamir defended Dagan but also noted that he was surprised by the way Dagan chose to express his opinions.

    “I’m sure Dagan was distressed and that could be seen in the way he expressed himself. Formally speaking, he hasn’t broken any laws, though he may have broken some ethically. I can’t recall a Mossad chief that had this kind of outburst. I was as shocked as any reader and wondered why this was in the newspaper but he didn’t reveal any secrets.”

    ‘Lessons not utilized’

    Recollecting his own term as Mossad head, Zamir said that he had been in a similar situation during the Yom Kippur War. “Everyone thought we were heading for war and I couldn’t break through the inability of the defense minister, military intelligence director and chief of staff to see other options, it was impossible.”

    Zamir noted that “the lessons of the 1973 war haven’t been implemented and I cannot forgive that, I am a part of that. There is disregard and misunderstanding by the echelons who should be aware that it rests upon our shoulders.”,7340,L-4079941,00.html


  6. Pingback: Arab revolutions, new film | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  7. Pingback: Muslim students murdered in North Carolina, USA | Dear Kitty. Some blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.