Tag: Hamas

Criminal Intent and Militant Funding

By Scott Stewart | June 24, 2010

STRATFOR is currently putting the finishing touches on a detailed assessment of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), the al Qaeda-inspired jihadist franchise in that country. As we got deeper into that project, one of the things we noticed was the group’s increasing reliance on criminal activity to fund its operations. In recent months, in addition to kidnappings for ransom and extortion of businessmen — which have been endemic in Iraq for many years — the ISI appears to have become increasingly involved in armed robbery directed against banks, currency exchanges, gold markets and jewelry shops.
This increase in criminal activity highlights how the ISI has fallen on hard times since its heyday in 2006-2007, when it was flush with cash from overseas donors and when its wealth led the apex leadership of al Qaeda in Pakistan to ask its Iraqi franchise for financial assistance. But when considered in a larger context, the ISI’s shift to criminal activity is certainly not surprising and, in fact, follows the pattern of many other ideologically motivated terrorist or insurgent groups that have been forced to resort to crime to support themselves.

The Cost of Doing Business

Whether we are talking about a small urban terrorist cell or a large-scale rural insurgency, it takes money to maintain a militant organization. It costs money to conduct even a rudimentary terrorist attack, and while there are a lot of variables in calculating the costs of a single attack, in order to simplify things, we’ll make a ballpark estimate of not more than $100 for an attack that involves a single operative detonating an improvised explosive device or using a firearm. (It certainly is possible to construct a lethal device for less, and many grassroots plots have cost far more, but we think $100 is a fair general estimate.) While that amount may seem quite modest by Western standards, it is important to remember that in the places where militant groups tend to thrive, like Somalia and Pakistan, the population is very poor. The typical Somali earns approximately $600 a year, and the typical Pakistani living in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas makes around $660. For many individuals living in such areas, the vehicle used in an attack deploying a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device (VBIED) is a luxury that they can never aspire to own for personal use, much less afford to buy only to destroy it in an attack. Indeed, even the $100 it may cost to conduct a basic terrorist attack is far more than they can afford.

To be sure, the expense of an individual terrorist attack can be marginal for a group like the ISI or the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). However, for such a group, the expenses required to operate are far more than just the amount required to conduct attacks — whether small roadside bombs or large VBIEDs. Such groups also need to establish and maintain the infrastructure required to operate a militant organization over a long period of time, not just during attacks but also between attacks. Setting up and operating such an infrastructure is far more costly than just paying for individual attacks.

In addition to the purchasing the materials required to conduct specific terrorist attacks, a militant organization also needs to pay wages to its fighters and provide food and lodging. Many also give stipends to the widows and families their fighters leave behind. In addition to the cost of personnel, the organization also needs to purchase safe-houses, modes of transportation (e.g., pickup trucks or motorcycles), communications equipment, weapons, munitions and facilities and equipment for training. If the militant organization hopes to use advanced weapons, like man-portable air defense systems, the costs can go even higher.

There are other costs involved in maintaining a large, professional militant group, such as travel, fraudulent identification documents (or legitimate documents obtained through fraud), payment for intelligence assets to monitor the activities of government forces, and even the direct bribery of security, border and other government officials. In some places, militant groups such as Hezbollah also pay for social services such as health care and education for the local population as a means of establishing and maintaining local support for the cause.

When added together, these various expenses amount to a substantial financial commitment, and operations are even more expensive in an environment where the local population is hostile to the militant organization and the government is persistently trying to cut off the group’s funding. In such an environment, the local people are less willing to provide support to the militants in the way of food, shelter and cash, and the militants are also forced to spend more money on operational security. Information about the government must also be purchased or coerced, and more “hush money” must be paid to keep people from telling the government about militant operations. In an environment where the local population is friendly, they will shelter militants and volunteer information about government forces and will not inform on militants to the government.

Sponsorship

One way to offset the steep cost of operating a large militant organization is by having a state sponsor. Indeed, funding rebel or insurgent groups to cause problems for a rival is an age-old tool of statecraft, and one that was exercised frequently during the Cold War. During that period, the United States worked to counter communist governments around the globe, and the Soviet Union and its partners operated a broad global array of proxy militant groups. In terms of geopolitical struggles, funding proxy groups is far less expensive than engaging in direct warfare in terms of both money and battlefield losses. Using proxies also provides benefits in terms of deniability for both domestic and international purposes.

For the militant group, the addition of a state sponsor can provide an array of modern weaponry and a great deal of useful training. For example, the FIM-92 Stinger missiles that the United States gave to Afghan militants fighting Soviet forces greatly enhanced the militants’ ability to counter the Soviets’ use of air power. The training provided by the Soviet KGB and its allies, the Cuban DGI and the East German Stasi, revolutionized the use of improvised explosive devices in terrorist attacks. Members of the groups these intelligence services trained at camps in Libya, Lebanon and Yemen, such as the German Red Brigades, the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA), the Japanese Red Army and various Palestinian militant groups (among others), all became quite adept at using explosives in terrorist attacks.

The prevalence of Marxist terrorist groups during the Cold War led some observers to believe that the phenomenon of modern terrorism would die with the fall of the Soviet Union. Indeed, many militant groups, from urban Marxist organizations like the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA) in Peru to rural based insurgents like the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), fell on hard financial times after the fall of the Soviet Union. While some of these groups withered away with their dwindling financial support (like the MRTA), others were more resourceful and found alternative ways to support their movement and continue their operations. The FARC, for example, was able to use its rural power in Colombia to offer protection to narcotics traffickers. In an ironic twist, elements of the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, a right-wing death squad set up to defend rich landowners against the FARC, have also gone on to play an important role in the Colombian Norte del Valle cartel and in various “bacrim” smuggling groups. Groups such as the PIRA and its splinters were able to fund themselves through robbery, extortion and “tiger kidnapping”.

In some places, the Marxist revolutionaries sought to keep the ideology of their cause separate from the criminal activities required to fund it following the loss of Soviet support. In the Philippines, for example, the New People’s Army formed what it termed “dirty job intelligence groups,” which were tasked with conducting kidnappings for ransom and robbing banks and armored cars. The groups also participated in a widespread campaign to shake down businesses for extortion payments, which it referred to as “revolutionary taxes.” In Central America, the Salvadoran Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) established a finance and logistics operation based out of Managua, Nicaragua, that conducted a string of kidnappings of wealthy industrialists in places like Mexico and Brazil. By targeting wealthy capitalists, the group sought to cast a Robin Hood-like light on this criminal activity. To further distance itself from the activity, the group used American and Canadian citizens to do much of its pre-operational surveillance and employed hired muscle from disbanded South American Marxist organizations to conduct the kidnappings and guard the hostages. The FMLN’s financial problems helped lead to the peace accords signed in 1992, and the FMLN has since become one of the main political parties in El Salvador. Its candidate, Mauricio Funes, was elected president of El Salvador in 2009.

Beyond the COMINTERN

The fall of the Soviet Union clearly did not end terrorism. Although Marxist militants funded themselves in Colombia, the Philippines and elsewhere through crime, Marxism was not the only flavor of terrorism on the planet. There are all sorts of motivations for terrorism as a militant tactic, from white supremacy to animal rights. But one of the most significant forces that arose in the 1980s as the Soviet Union was falling was militant Islamism. In addition to the ideals of the Iranian Revolution, which led to the creation of Hezbollah and other Iranian-sponsored groups, the Islamist fervor that was used to drum up support for the militants fighting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan eventually gave birth to al Qaeda and its jihadist spawn.

Although Hezbollah has always been funded by the governments of Iran and Syria, it has also become quite an entrepreneurial organization. Hezbollah has established a fundraising network that stretches across the globe and encompasses both legitimate businesses and criminal enterprises. In terms of its criminal operations, Hezbollah has a well-known presence in the tri-border region of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil, where the U.S. government estimates it has earned tens of millions of dollars from selling electronic goods, counterfeit luxury items and pirated software, movies and music. It also has an even more profitable network in West Africa that deals in “blood diamonds” from places like Sierra Leone and the Republic of the Congo. Cells in Asia procure and ship much of the counterfeit material sold elsewhere; nodes in North America deal in smuggled cigarettes, baby formula and counterfeit designer goods, among other things. In the United States, Hezbollah also has been involved in smuggling pseudoephedrine and selling counterfeit Viagra, and it has played a significant role in the production and worldwide propagation of counterfeit currencies. The business empire of the Shiite organization also extends into the narcotics trade, and Hezbollah earns large percentages of the estimated $1 billion in drug money flowing each year out of Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley.

On the jihadist side of militant Islamism, jihadist groups have been conducting criminal activity to fund their movement since the 1990s. The jihadist cell that conducted the March 2004 Madrid Train Bombings was self-funded by selling illegal drugs, and jihadists have been involved in a number of criminal schemes ranging from welfare fraud to interstate transportation of stolen property.

In addition, many wealthy Muslims in Saudi Arabia the Persian Gulf states and elsewhere saw the jihadist groups as a way to export their conservative Wahhabi/Salafi strain of Islam, and many considered their gifts to jihadist groups to be their way of satisfying the Muslim religious obligation to give to charity. The governments of Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, Syria and Pakistan saw jihadism as a foreign policy tool, and in some cases the jihadists were also seen as a tool to be used against domestic rivals. Pakistan was one of the most active countries playing the jihadist card, and it used it to influence its regional neighbors by supporting the growth of the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as Kashmiri militant groups such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) for use against its archrival, India.

After 2003, however, when the al Qaeda franchise in Saudi Arabia declared war on the Saudi government (and the oil industry that funds it), sentiment in that country began to change and the donations sent by wealthy Saudis to al Qaeda or al Qaeda-related charities began to decline markedly. By 2006, the al Qaeda core leadership — and the larger jihadist movement — was experiencing significant financial difficulties. Today, with Pakistan also experiencing a backlash from supporting jihadists who have turned against the state, and with the Sunni sheikhs in Iraq turning against the ISI there, funding and sanctuary are becoming increasingly difficult for jihadists to find.

In recent years, the United States and the international community have taken a number of steps to monitor the international transfer of money, track charitable donations and scrutinize charities. These measures have begun to have an effect — not just in the case of the jihadist groups but for all major militant organizations. These systems are not foolproof, and there are still gaps that can be exploited, but overall, the legislation, procedures and tools now in place make financing from abroad much more difficult than it was prior to September 2001.

The Need to Survive

And this brings us where we are today regarding terrorism and funding. While countries like Venezuela and Nicaragua play around with supporting the export of Marxism through Latin America, the funding for Marxist movements in the Western Hemisphere is far below what it was before the fall of the Soviet Union. Indeed, transnational drug cartels and their allied street gangs pose a far greater threat to the stability of countries in the region today.

Groups that cannot find state sponsorship, such as the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) in Nigeria, will be left to fund themselves through ransoms for kidnapped oil workers, selling stolen oil and from protection money. (It is worth noting, however, that MEND also has some powerful patrons inside Nigeria’s political structure.) And groups that still receive state funding, like Iranian proxies Hezbollah and Hamas as well as Shiite militant groups in Iraq and the Persian Gulf region, will continue to get that support. (There are frequent rumors that Iran is supporting jihadist groups in places like Iraq and Afghanistan as a way to cause pain to the United States.)

Overall, state sponsorship of jihadist groups has been declining since supporting countries realized they were being attacked by militant groups of their own creation. Some countries, like Syria and Pakistan, still keep their fingers in the jihadist pie, but as time progresses more countries are coming to see the jihadists as threats rather than useful tools. For the past few years, we have seen groups like al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb resort to narcotics smuggling and the kidnapping of foreigners to fund their operations and that trend will likely increase. For one thing, the jump from militant attacks to criminal activity is relatively easy to make. Criminal activity (whether it’s robbing a bank or extorting business owners for “taxes”) requires the same physical force — or at least the threat of physical force — that militant groups perfect over years of carrying out insurgent or terrorist attacks.

While such criminal activity does allow a militant group to survive, it comes with a number of risks. First is the risk that members of the organization could become overly enamored with the criminal activity and the money it brings and abandon the cause — and the austere life of an ideological fighter — to pursue a more lucrative criminal career. (In many cases, they will attempt to retain some ideological facade for recruitment or legitimacy purposes. On the other hand, some jihadist groups believe that criminal activities allow them to emulate the actions of the Prophet Mohammed, who raided the caravans of his enemies to fund his movement and allowed his men to take booty.) Criminal activity can also cause ideological splits between the more pragmatic members of a militant organization and those who believe that criminal behavior tarnishes the image of their cause. And criminal activity can turn the local population against the militants — especially the population being targeted for crimes — while providing law enforcement with opportunities to arrest militant operatives on charges that are in many cases easier to prove than conspiring to conduct terrorist attacks. Lastly, reliance on criminal activity for funding a militant group requires a serious commitment of resources — men and guns — that cannot be allocated to other activities when they are being used to commit crimes.

As efforts to combat terrorism continue, militant leaders will increasingly be forced to choose between abandoning their cause or possibly tarnishing its public image. When faced with such a choice, many militant leaders — like those of the ISI — will follow the examples of groups like the FARC and the PIRA and choose to pursue criminal means to continue their struggle.

June 24, 2010
Turkey and Israel by Abraham Foxman

Strained Relations between Israel and Turkey Undermines Bridge Between West and Muslim World

Abraham Foxman June 21st 2010

Cutting Edge commentator

These are sad times indeed for those with a strong attachment to Israel, and an equal and longstanding respect for Turkey. The unique relationship shared by these two countries, down through history and into the present, is being undermined in a stormy environment of disagreement, and charged rhetoric.

We need not go into a rehash of the much-discussed events and the diplomatic rows that brought us to this pass. The strongly critical remarks by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, first at Davos in response to Israel’s December 2008 invasion of Gaza, and more recently over the flotilla episode and the deaths of nine Turkish activists aboard the Mavi Marmara, have cast a deep pall over the Israeli-Turkish relationship.

The echoes of Davos and the flotilla affair seem to be prevailing over calm heads and good will, and we can only wonder, why?

Sadly, an historic era of cooperation may be slipping away, as Turkey appears on the verge of abandoning a role it so proudly played as a bridge between the Muslim world and the West. The inter-governmental and people-to-people relationships are fraying, and the tangible benefits they have brought to both sides are at serious risk.

This is a shared history based on mutual interests and concerns. In March 1949, Turkey became the first Muslim state to recognize Israel, and in 1958, Turkish Prime Minister Adnan Menderes and Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion met in secret to sign a military and intelligence cooperation agreement. Ben-Gurion later wrote to President Dwight D. Eisenhower that Israel’s “links with the Government of Turkey have grown more intimate in secret channels.”

Turkish-Israeli relations have always had ups and downs. Yet, until recently, the unmistakable trend for the prior two decades was growing trade and investment, more cultural exchanges, increased tourism, ever greater military and intelligence cooperation and more frequent political meetings.

The relationship was much more than strategic. Both Israeli and Turkish societies benefited from close ties that transcended the politics of the moment. Israelis found in Turkey a beautiful country for vacations and struck up close friendships in Turkey. After a disastrous earthquake struck Turkey in 1999, Israel was one of the first countries to extend emergency assistance by sending sophisticated equipment and search and rescue crews. The Israeli public launched a spontaneous campaign to assist the victims, as thousands of Israelis stood in line across the country to donate more than 25 tons blankets, clothing and food.

There was also the memory of history. Turkey, and the Ottoman Empire that preceded it, served as a safe haven for Jews, from the time of the expulsion from Spain and Portugal and into the Holocaust years. And Turkey’s protection of its own minority Jewish community was admirable and unique among the nations – and particularly in the aftermath of the 2003 bombing of two synagogues in Istanbul, when Turkish leaders stood up to publicly decry anti-Semitism.

Until recently, Turkey was held up as proof that a Muslim-majority country could have warm and significant relations with the Jewish state. Turkey now seems to shun that globally important role.

Today, the relationship is in steep decline. Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu compared the Gaza flotilla incident to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Turkey recalled its ambassador to Israel, and President Abdullah Gul has left open the possibility of breaking off relations altogether.

Israeli tourism to Turkey has plummeted, and Israeli supermarkets are boycotting Turkish products. Turkey has cancelled joint military exercises. Israel and Turkey have clashed over policies toward Iran, Hamas, and Syria. Erdogan is reported to have angrily proclaimed in public remarks that the Star of David is the same as the Nazi swastika. A Turkish delegation of teachers and scholars, scheduled to participate in an event at Yad Vashem on the lessons of the Holocaust, failed to show.

Beyond the bilateral relationship, Turkey is in the process of losing other roles and friends. For many years, Turkey has sought to leverage its geographic linking of the Middle East and Europe to create connections between different religions and cultures. Today, however, its rapprochement with Iran, Hamas, and Syria generates doubts, not confidence, in the U.S. and elsewhere.

The American Jewish community has long been supportive of Turkish interests in the United States, as a NATO ally and based on its strategic relationship with Israel, a premise that many politically active Jewish organizations may have to revisit.

Turkey, Israel and the international community would benefit from a reversal of this downward spiral. An investigation into the flotilla affair with international observers has been commissioned by Israel, and hopefully it will provide a base from which to rebuild the relationship. Until then, both Israelis and Turks should exercise care with their rhetoric and their actions.

However, should that investigation uncover Turkish government involvement with Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH), the Istanbul-based charity that was one of the major sponsors the Free Gaza flotilla, and its preparations for violently confronting Israeli solders – as some information now suggests – the report could be the death knell for rebuilding the relationship.

Hopefully, what we are seeing today from Turkey is a temporary detour from the path it has pursued so successfully for years. Hopefully, the friendship we had come to know and to rely on will re-emerge.

Hopefully, the instincts of the Turkish people that wrote a magnificent chapter in Jewish history more than 500 years ago as a haven and refuge for those expelled from Spain will bring Turkey back from the brink.

Then we will be able to continue to celebrate our long-held affection and respect for Turkey.

Cutting Edge commentator Abraham H. Foxman is National Director of the Anti-Defamation League and author of “The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control.”

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=12293

June 21, 2010
Peace for Israelis and Palestinians? Not without America’s tough love.

It is important to know that this piece was written by the nephew of Benjamin Netanyahu…

An Israeli student explains why the US should act on moral outrage over Israel’s discriminatory policies before it’s too late.

By Jonathan Ben-Artzi
posted April 1, 2010 at 11:48 am EDT

Providence, R.I. —

More than 20 years ago, many Americans decided they could no longer watch as racial segregation divided South Africa. Compelled by an injustice thousands of miles away, they demanded that their communities, their colleges, their municipalities, and their government take a stand.

As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Today, a similar discussion is taking place on campuses across the United States. Increasingly, students are questioning the morality of the ties US institutions have with the unjust practices being carried out in Israel and in the occupied Palestinian territories. Students are seeing that these practices are often more than merely “unjust.” They are racist. Humiliating. Inhumane. Savage.

Sometimes it takes a good friend to tell you when enough is enough. As they did with South Africa two decades ago, concerned citizens across the US can make a difference by encouraging Washington to get the message to Israel that this cannot continue.

A legitimate question is, Why should I care? Americans are heavily involved in the conflict: from funding (the US provides Israel with roughly $3 billion annually in military aid) to corporate investments (Microsoft has one of its major facilities in Israel) to diplomatic support (the US has vetoed 32 United Nations Security Council resolutions unsavory to Israel between 1982 and 2006).

Why do I care? I am an Israeli. Both my parents were born in Israel. Both my grandmothers were born in Palestine (when there was no “Israel” yet). In fact, I am a ninth-generation native of Palestine. My ancestors were among the founders of today’s modern Jerusalem.

Both my grandfathers fled the Nazis and came to Palestine. Both were subsequently injured in the 1948 Arab-Israli War. My mother’s only brother was a paratrooper killed in combat in 1968. All of my relatives served in the Israeli military for extensive periods of time, some of them in units most people don’t even know exist.

In Israel, military service for both men and women is compulsory. When my time to serve came, I refused, because I realized I was obliged to do something about these acts of segregation. I was denied conscientious objector status, like the majority of 18-year-old males who seek this status. Because I refused to serve, I spent a year and a half in military prison.

Some of the acts of segregation that I saw while growing up in Israel include towns for Jews only, immigration laws that allow Jews from around the world to immigrate but deny displaced indigenous Palestinians that same right, and national healthcare and school systems that receive significantly more funding in Jewish towns than in Arab towns.

As former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in 2008: “We have not yet overcome the barrier of discrimination, which is a deliberate discrimination and the gap is insufferable…. Governments have denied [Arab Israelis] their rights to improve their quality of life.”

The situation in the occupied territories is even worse. Nearly 4 million Palestinians have been living under Israeli occupation for over 40 years without the most basic human and civil rights.

One example is segregation on roads in the West Bank, where settlers travel on roads that are for Jews only, while Palestinians are stopped at checkpoints, and a 10-mile commute might take seven hours.

Another example is discrimination in water supply: Israel pumps drinking water from occupied territory (in violation of international law). Israelis use as much as four times more water than Palestinians, while Palestinians are not allowed to dig their own wells and must rely on Israeli supply.

Civil freedom is no better: In an effort to break the spirit of Palestinians, Israel conducts sporadic arrests and detentions with no judicial supervision. According to one prisoner support and human rights association, roughly 4 in 10 Palestinian males have spent some time in Israeli prisons. That’s 40 percent of all Palestinian males!

And finally, perhaps one of the greatest injustices takes place in the Gaza Strip, where Israel is collectively punishing more than 1.5 million Palestinians by sealing them off in the largest open-air prison on earth.

Because of the US’s relationship with Israel, it is important for all Americans to educate themselves about the realities of the conflict. When they do, they will realize that just as much as support for South Africa decades ago was mostly damaging for South Africa itself, contemporary blind support for Israel hurts us Israelis.

We must lift the ruthless siege of Gaza, which only breeds more anger and frustration among Gazans,who respond by hurling primitive, homemade rockets at Israeli towns.

We must remove travel restrictions from West Bank Palestinians. How can we live in peace with a population where most children cannot visit their grandparents living in the neighboring village, without being stopped and harassed at military checkpoints for hours?

Finally, we must give equal rights to all. Regardless of what the final resolution will be – the so-called“one state solution,” the “two state solution,” or any other form of governance.

Israel governs the lives of 5.5 million Israeli Jews, 1.5 million Israeli Palestinians, and 4 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. As long as Israel is responsible for all of these people, it must ensure that all have equal rights, the same access to resources, and the same opportunities in education and healthcare. Only through such a platform of basic human rights for all humans can a resolution come to the region.

If Americans truly are our friends, they should shake us up and take away the keys, because right now we are driving drunk, and without this wake-up call, we will soon find ourselves in the ditch of an undemocratic, doomed state.

Jonathan Ben-Artzi was one of the spokespeople for the Hadash party in the Israeli general elections in 2006. His parents are professors in Israel, and his extended family includes uncle Benjamin Netanyahu. Mr. Ben-Artzi is a PhD student at Brown University in Providence, R.I.

==================================================================

Jonathan Ben Artzi, Israeli Prisoner of Conscience, Victorious Against IDF

Jonathan Ben Artzi free from army service

For eight years, Jonathan Ben Artzi, nephew of Bibi Netanyahu, has battled the IDF, refusing to serve in the army. He is a conscientious objector recognized by Amnesty International. However, the Israeli army refuses to recognize pacifism as a legitimate category for exemption from service. It saw his refusal as a deliberate flouting of its authority over all Israeli youth who are required to serve a 3-year term in the army. Those officers who sentenced Ben Artzi to eight months in military prison believed that his unpunished refusal might encourage others to follow him. Though why the brass believe anyone in their right mind would chose to emulate a boy who gave eight months of his life to prison and eight years to fighting this case–is beyond me.

Ben Artzi’s case got as high as the Israeli Supreme Court, which actually ruled on elements of it four different times over the eight years. In the final hearing, it made its squeamishness known about sentencing Ben Artzi to further prison time. The IDF got the message and settled the case on terms highly favorable to Ben Artzi. His parents, who supported him during his entire legal campaign, circulated these messages to his supporters:

Dear Friends,

Yoni’s legal battle is over! Those of you who wish to get more details–we’ll be happy to provide (the final agreement is being translated to English). However, at this point we choose to forward Yoni’s own words.

We are very very grateful for your help, support and moral encouragement,

Ofra and Matania Ben-Artzi.

Victory in court

Dear Friends,

After Supreme Court judges Beinish, Levi and Meltzer expressed their discomfort with having to send me to prison now, 8 years after the whole saga began, the military was forced into an agreement with us, in which they admit defeat: the agreement states that I will not have to serve any time in prison, only having two months of probation, and that I remain loyal to my pacifist views. This is a major blow to a prosecution that started this whole thing with a goal of sending me (like the five[other refusers]) to at least one year in prison.

Thanks to all those who have supported me throughout these years – it was an invaluable help!

Yoni

Ben Artzi’s case is important not only because of his refusal to serve, which is a deeply stigmatized view within Israeli society. It is also important because 50% of Israeli youth find other means of refusing to serve. As Colin Urquart’s Guardian article notes, this is called “grey resistance,” because these individuals disguise their refusal in more socially acceptable grounds including psychiatric deferments or leaving the country. The rate of refusal is ever increasing which indicates a growing recognition among the young that military service is no longer the vaunted national ideal it once was. Israel’s 40 Occupation of the Palestinian people and its disastrous war in Lebanon have caused the young to lose their appetite for the ‘glory’ of fulfilling their duty to their country.

All those who find themselves unsympathetic to Ben Artzi should consider that he is no shirker. Besides the fact that his father’s sister is married to Bibi Netanyahu, a number of his close relatives have died or been severely wounded serving the country going all the way back the War of Independence. Netanyahu freely accepts an obligation to do alternative service under civilian auspices. But he will not accept the IDF’s authority over him.

Currently, he is a grad student in mathematics at Brown University.

For more background on Ben Artzi’s case read:

Netanyahu nephew faces jail as army refusenik
I Realized the Stupidity of It (interview)

Thanks to Cecilie Surasky of Muzzlewatch for forwarding the family e mail to me.

June 8, 2010
Turkey and Israel close to brink

news from israeli intelligence

DEBKAfile DEBKA-Net-Weekly June 2, 2010, 12:34 PM (GMT+02:00)

Turkish prime minister squares off against Israel

The war projected between Israel and the Iran-led bloc of Syria, Hizballah and Hamas is suddenly overshadowed by Turkish-Israeli hostilities over a deadly Israeli commando raid on an aid flotilla from Istanbul. Against the US president Barack Obama’s bid to bridge the rift, Turkish generals are drawing up plans to break Israel’s Gaza blockade and avenge 9 deaths, while Israel is bound by its war on terror to thwart them – bringing both to the brink of overt hostilities.

June 7, 2010
Possible Challange to Israels blockade by Erdogan

Israel’s intelligence report

Turkish troops deployed in Cyprus, top intelligence ranks Islamized
DEBKAfile Special Report June 6, 2010, 1:55 PM (GMT+02:00)

Dr. Hakan Fidan, new Turkish MIT chief

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan is clearly spoiling for more trouble with Israel. This is manifested by the steps which are revealed here by debkafile’s military and intelligence sources. The peaceful outcome of the Rachel Corrie incident Saturday, June 5, and Israel’s efforts to keep the crisis under control have had no effect on his determination to raise rather than de-escalate Turkish-Israeli friction.
Friday, Erdogan made sure his close aides leaked word to the media that he was preparing a large wave of flotillas to challenge Israel’s blockade, to be escorted next time by armed Turkish warships with himself possibly on board.

To this, our sources add:
1. The prime minister’s office in Ankara is forking out millions of dollars to the IHH (Insani Yardim Vakfi), the Istanbul-based terrorist group linked to al Qaeda and Hamas, with orders to purchase 8-10 large ships for a formidable fleet to challenge the Israeli Navy and its enforcement of the 20-mile blockade of the Gaza Strip.
This is the second time he is recruiting the IHH terrorists who assaulted Israeli commandos boarding the Mavi Marmara on May 31, leaving nine people dead and 45 injured in consequence.

The Washington Post Sunday called for the Erdogan’s government’s ties to the IHH to be one focus of any international investigation into the Marmara incident, pointing to its support for Hamas, which the United States has named as a terrorist entity. The paper called foreign minister Ahmet Davutogolu’s statement that the Israeli attack “is like 9/11 for Turkey” obscene.

2. Last week, ahead of the Marmara incident, Erdogan began deploying at the Turkish end of Cyprus air, naval and marine units, holding them ready to combat Israeli takeovers of Gaza-bound vessels. He was only restrained from sending them into action by the last-minute intervention of President Barack Obama’s NSA James Jones and President Nicolas Sarkozy’s chef de bureau who, according to debkafile’s Washington and Paris sources, threatened him with isolation in NATO and Europe if he went ahead.
Saturday, the Turkish leader had his aides leak to the media that he was seriously thinking of leading the next flotilla in person to dramatize his confrontation with Israel.
3. At home, the Turkish prime minister shored up his intelligence ranks ahead of his planned showdown with Israel, replacing professional directors for the first time in modern Turkish history with civilians, radical Muslims close to him personally.
debkafile names them for the first time here as Hakan Fidan, the former head of TIKA, the Turkish International & Development Agency, who is appointed head of the Central Turkish Intelligence Agency – MIT, the equivalent of the Israel Mossad; and Istanbul Governor Muammer Guler, who is the new Undersecretary for Public Order and Security, who in fact directs Turkey’s special operations against terrorists.
By these appointments, the Turkish prime minister put paid to any lingering hopes still cherished by some circles in Israel of preserving the long-held back channels to Ankara.

And finally, Turkey’s state prosecutors are instructed to prepare charges of murder and piracy on the high seas against Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, defense minister Ehud Barak and chief of staff Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazy.

June 7, 2010
Israel, Turkey, Gaza in covert sea war. Hamas frogmen thwarted

news from israeli intelligence

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report June 7, 2010, 11:11 AM (GMT+02:00)

Turkey buries victims of Kurdish PKK attack, suspects Israeli hand

The Israeli commando raid on a Turkish ferry heading to break the Gaza blockade, in which 9 activists were killed, is turning out a week later to have kicked off a semi-clandestine sea war between Israel, Turkey and the Gaza-based Hamas, debkafile’s military sources report. Monday, June 7, Hamas frogmen were on their way to a large-scale attack on an Israeli target when their boat was intercepted by Israeli commandos and four or five armed Palestinians killed. Turkey is investigating suspicions of Israel’s hand behind a deadly Kurdish terrorist attack on its Iskenderun base on May 31.
Our military sources disclose Iskenderun’s quietly growing role in the last two months as a military hub in potential confrontations by Syria and Hizballah with Israel. In mid-May, Turkey moved anti-air missile batteries into the port to defend targets in Syria and Lebanon against potential Israeli air strikes from the eastern Mediterranean. This is the first time Ankara has provided Syria and Hizballah with an air defense umbrella and come down on their side in their conflict with Israel.

Some hours after Israeli commandos clashed with armed men aboard the Mavi Marmara, Kurdish PKK rebel fighters attacked the Turkish naval base at Iskenderun on the Syrian border, killing seven Turkish seamen and injuring another six. If Ankara can prove its suspicions, it will be able to claim that Israel is involved by proxy in terrorist attacks on Turkish soil. Diplomatic relations still in force despite the frictions between the two countries will then be severed, one step before a declaration of war.

Following the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan’s fiery abuse of Israel, Interior Minister Besir Atalay said Sunday, June 6: “We have been working hard, especially to ascertain what happened in the Iskenderun incident.” Local media have suggested he is looking for Israeli covert invovlement in the planning and execution of the deadly attack on the Turkish naval base in revenge for the violence on the Marmara against the Israeli naval boarding party.

Early Monday, June 7, an Israeli Navy Commando force intercepted a large group of armed Palestinian frogmen, members of the Hamas sea commando, on their way from the Gaza Strip to the Israeli shore to the north early Monday, June 7. Palestinian sources confirmed at least four wet-suited terrorists were killed, and another four were missing in the wake of a shootout in the Nahal Aza area of the Gaza Strip near Nuseirat between their boat and Israeli troops.
The IDF spokesman reported there were no Israeli casualties. debkafile’s military sources report the Hamas seaborne unit aimed to prove itself capable by striking an Israeli target of retaliating for the thwarting of the Turkish-led campaign to break the Gaza blockade.

Shortly afterwards, a Palestinian Qassam missile squad was spotted on land near Jebalya preparing to fire into Israel. It was knocked out by the Israeli Air force.
debkafile: Cross-fire from Gaza on Israeli border patrols is frequent, almost daily and Hamas still launches several Qassam missiles and mortar bombs into Israel every week, but attempts attacks by Hamas or related groups from the sea are a new development.

June 7, 2010