Tag: UN

UN condemns Israel’s deadly raid on blockade-busting aid convoy as British relatives face anxious wait for news

United Nations calls for impartial investigation

One Briton injured – 28 believed to be on flotilla

Israel: This was not a successful operation

Turkey accuses Israel of ‘state terrorism’

The United Nations Security Council today condemned Israel’s bloody commando raid on the Gaza flotilla and which left up to 19 dead and called for an impartial investigation into the incident.

In a statement released after a marathon 12-hour session, the body attacked ‘those acts’ which resulted in the loss of life.

But it stopped short of naming Israel outright, a move designed to placate the country’s closest ally the United States.

The statement, which called for ‘a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation, is unlikely to assuage Turkey.

Ankara had used some of the harshest language against the Jewish state for launching the raid against the flotilla, which included a Turkish ferry on which the pro-Palestinian activists were killed.

Turkey’s Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, whose country drafted the initial presidential statement, called the Israeli raid ‘banditry and piracy’ on the high seas and ‘murder conducted by a state’.

The United Nations Security Council today condemned Israel’s bloody commando raid on the Gaza flotilla and which left up to 19 dead and called for an impartial investigation into the incident.

In a statement released after a marathon 12-hour session, the body attacked ‘those acts’ which resulted in the loss of life.

But it stopped short of naming Israel outright, a move designed to placate the country’s closest ally the United States.

The statement, which called for ‘a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation, is unlikely to assuage Turkey.

Ankara had used some of the harshest language against the Jewish state for launching the raid against the flotilla, which included a Turkish ferry on which the pro-Palestinian activists were killed.

Turkey’s Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, whose country drafted the initial presidential statement, called the Israeli raid ‘banditry and piracy’ on the high seas and ‘murder conducted by a state’.

The United Nations Security Council today condemned Israel’s bloody commando raid on the Gaza flotilla and which left up to 19 dead and called for an impartial investigation into the incident.

In a statement released after a marathon 12-hour session, the body attacked ‘those acts’ which resulted in the loss of life.

But it stopped short of naming Israel outright, a move designed to placate the country’s closest ally the United States.

The statement, which called for ‘a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation, is unlikely to assuage Turkey.

Ankara had used some of the harshest language against the Jewish state for launching the raid against the flotilla, which included a Turkish ferry on which the pro-Palestinian activists were killed.

Turkey’s Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, whose country drafted the initial presidential statement, called the Israeli raid ‘banditry and piracy’ on the high seas and ‘murder conducted by a state’.

The incident happened in international waters and worldwide condemnation of Israel was swift.

Former British ambassador to the UN Sir Jeremy Greenstock said there had been ‘immediate international rage’ following the ‘unnecessary loss of life’.

He said that Israel had to make sure weapons were not getting into Gaza ‘so some kind of defence is necessary but this was clearly not very well handled’.

Sir Jeremy added: ‘It’s past time by some years for serious international action to end the blockade and the virtual starvation of Gaza.

‘This is not going to work as a way of dealing with the Palestinian territories over the long term.

‘It’s not going to work, frankly, for a democratic and law-abiding nation such as Israel – it’s changing the character of Israel to be responsible for this kind of occupation for so long.

‘And to my mind, this situation is just not necessary as it stands at the moment.’

The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Conflict Issues said the flotilla raid had caused ‘indescribable pain” to the families of those killed and “provoked anger around the world’.

The three MPs co-chairing the group – Liberal Democrat Simon Hughes, Labour’s John McDonnell, and Conservative Gary Streeter – released a statement urging all sides to renounce violence.

They said: ‘As long as this long-running dispute remains unresolved, we fear that many more lives will be lost on all sides, resulting in even more pain and further deepening the hatred and distrust between all those involved.

‘Conflict resolution has been successfully used to end conflict in other parts of the world – now it’s time for the Israel-Palestine conflict to be resolved, for good.’

Turkey, from where most of the dead are said to come, accused Israel of ‘state terrorism’ and withdrew its ambassador to Tel Aviv.

Tens of thousands marched through Istanbul and attempted to storm the Israeli consulate, chanting: ‘ Murderous Israel, you will drown in the blood you shed.’

Deputy prime minister Bulent Arinc called Israel’s actions ‘piracy’ and cancelled three planned joint military exercises.

Foreign Secretary William Hague ‘deplored the loss of life’ and asked for access to the British involved, while David Cameron branded the attack ‘unacceptable’.

The deadly clash sparked a wave of furious condemnation of Israel – with 2,000 demonstrators outside the gates of Downing Street and thousands more outside the Israeli Embassy in West London.

In Paris, hundreds clashed with police near the Israeli Embassy. Police responded by firing tear gas.

The White House, which has close ties with both Israel and Turkey, expressed ‘deep regret at the loss of life in today’s incident, and concern for the wounded’.

Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu cancelled a trip to Washington planned for today to head home as the crisis erupted.

He expressed his ‘full backing’ for the military action.

Earlier, the UN said it was ‘shocked’ by the violence. Following a 90-minute open meeting, the Security Council went into closed-door consultations. Diplomats said envoys were haggling over the text of a proposed statement by the council, a task that dragged on into the evening.

Many council members criticized the Israeli action with varying degrees of vehemence, and said it was time for Israel’s three-year-old blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza to be lifted.

‘This is tantamount to banditry and piracy,’ Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told the council. ‘It is murder conducted by a state.’

The Jewish state argues that the blockade, which began in 2007, is necessary to prevent arms reaching the Hamas-controlled enclave.

The high-profile aid mission – unofficially supported by Turkey – set off from Cyprus on Sunday, led by the Turkish passenger ferry the Mavi Marmara, with 500 people aboard and 10,000 tons of food, medicines and building materials.

There were two other passenger ships – one Irish and one Swedish – and three cargo ships thought to be all Turkish. After warnings from Israel to turn back, they were intercepted before dawn yesterday by three warships about 40 miles from Gaza, still within international waters.

Commandos launched their raid on the Marmara by helicopter, slipping down a rope to the top deck. Greta Berlin, a founder of the Free Gaza Movement and one of the organisers of the flotilla, claimed the marines fired indiscriminately at unarmed civilians.

‘We are all civilians,’ she said. ‘Every one of us is a civilian who is trying to break Israel’s blockade of one and a half million Palestinians.’

Audrey Bomse, another spokesman for the movement, told the BBC: ‘We were not going to pose any violent resistance.’

However the Israeli Defence Force posted a video on the internet site YouTube of footage taken from the helicopter which it claimed showed its soldiers being attacked as they landed.

Defence Minister Ehud Barak said the commandos had orders to use ‘minimum force’ to commandeer the vessels, and met only token resistance on the other five ships.

But he said the forces were ‘ambushed’ on the Mavi Marmara by protesters using ‘extreme violence’ with weapons including two pistols, knives and iron bars.

The commandeered ships were brought several hours later into the port of Ashdod, where passengers were given the option of being voluntarily deported or arrested and taken to Israeli prisons.

There was a communications blackout, with the surviving protesters’ satellite phones being confiscated, making it impossible to hear their version of events.

The Daily Mail

June 1, 2010
Turkish PM: Critics of Iran should get rid of nukes

By MARCO SIBAJA (AP)

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, left, Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, center, and Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan attend the Third Forum of the Alliance of Civilizations in Rio de Janeiro, Friday, May 28, 2010. The AoC is a high-level group of experts that explore the roots of polarization between societies and cultures today and recommend a practical program of action to address the issue. (AP Photo/Silvia Izquierdo

RIO DE JANEIRO — Nations criticizing an Iranian nuclear fuel-swap deal brokered by Brazil and Turkey should eliminate their own nuclear weapon stockpiles, Turkey’s leader said Friday.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan made the comments just hours after claiming that the West was “envious” of Brazil and Turkey’s achievement in getting Iran to agree to the deal. U.S. officials have criticized the agreement, in part because it does not stop Iran from continuing to enrich uranium. The U.S. also says the deal is a ploy by Iran to delay new international sanctions.

“Those who speak to this issue should eliminate nuclear weapons from their own country and they should bear the good news to all mankind by doing that,” Erdogan said while attending a U.N. conference in Rio de Janeiro.

His comments were aimed at the U.S. and its massive nuclear stockpile.

On Thursday, he remarked that “Those who criticize the accord are envious.”

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Washington on Thursday that the U.S. has “very serious disagreements with Brazil’s diplomacy vis-a-vis Iran.”

“We think buying time for Iran, enabling Iran to avoid international unity with respect to their nuclear program, makes the world more dangerous, not less,” Clinton said during a talk at the Brookings Institution. “They have a different perspective on what they see they’re doing.”

Clinton said one of the U.S. government’s main concern is that despite the fuel-swap deal, Iran is insisting on continuing to enrich uranium at a high level.

Both Erdogan and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva say they do not see the nuclear fuel-swap deal as a solution to the Iranian nuclear standoff, but as a starting point to get Iran back to the negotiations.

Under the deal, submitted this week to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran agrees to ship 1,200 kilograms (2,640 pounds) of uranium to Turkey, where it will be stored. In exchange, Iran would get fuel rods made from 20-percent enriched uranium; that level of enrichment is high enough for use in research reactors but too low for nuclear weapons.

Among concerns by opponents of the deal is that Iran has continued to churn out low-enriched material and is running a pilot program of enriching to higher levels, near 20 percent.

Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim told reporters in Rio the fuel swap deal contains all the elements that the U.S. and other nations were seeking in similar agreement last year.

“We are not defenders of Iran. We are trying to help peace,” Amorim said. “The agreement contains all that which was proposed by the Group of Vienna, especially by Russia, the United States and France, and now we need time to see if it will bear results.”

Silva said that the deal was meant to resolve “a conflict that threatens much more than the stability of an important region of the planet.”

“The world needs a peaceful Middle East.”

Last month, Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a new arms-control treaty that would limit each country’s stockpile of nuclear warheads to 1,550, down from the current level of 2,200 — bringing the arsenals to a level last seen in the 1950s. It replaces the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START I, which expired in December.

The treaty must be ratified by both the Russian parliament and the U.S. Congress.

Associated Press Writers Bradley Brooks in Rio de Janeiro, Stan Lehman in Sao Paulo, and George Jahn in Vienna contributed to this report.

, 28 May 2010

May 29, 2010
Turkey in Europe and beyond: the Cyprus issue

DAVID HANNAY

1. Pessimists have always outnumbered optimists so far as resolving the Cyprus problem is concerned – and rightly so if you look back over the last 45 years of failed attempts to do just that, a diplomatic battlefield strewn with the withering bones of numerous U.N. secretary generals, U.N. special representatives, mediators and facilitators from the main Security Council operators and of course leaders of the two communities in Cyprus. Many of them walked away, pronouncing the problem insoluble. Despite myself spending seven years breaking my teeth on the basic intractability of the issues and on the challenge of getting the two Cypriot parties and their backers in Greece and Turkey to reach workable compromises on those issues, I am not one of that school of thought. The problem is, I believe, soluble.

2. First, an existential question – does it matter? Could not the world simply job along with the Cyprus problem unsolved? Living with that status quo which so many Security Council resolutions have futilely denounced, and declared to be unacceptable? Not so long ago a prime minister of Turkey – Bülent Ecevit – used to tell his visitors that he had solved the Cyprus problem in 1974. But, quite apart from the problems on the island itself, which have admittedly somewhat eased in recent years with the lessening of tensions along the cease fire Green Line, with the opening up of more crossing points and with increased contacts between the two communities, the list of reasons why accepting the status quo makes no sort of sense is a long one. Cyprus remains a painful pebble in the shoe of Turkey’s EU accession negotiation without whose removal it is hard to see those negotiations ever being brought to successful conclusion; Cyprus is in addition already complicating negatively Turkey’s existing customs union relationship with the EU as the Ankara Protocol remains unimplemented; it is frustrating attempts to build a better working relationships with all of Turkey’s neighbors, it is the weakest link in that chain – because Cyprus is a neighbor of Turkey, every bit as significant for the success of the new policy as Syria, Iraq or Armenia, and its relationship to Turkey will affect, either positively or negatively, that of another neighbor, Greece. The list is surely long enough to answer the question, even if experience did not tell one, as it does, that Cyprus neglected is all too likely to bite the international community painfully in the ankle at some unexpected moment. So Abdullah Gül was surely right when he first coined the phrase in 2002: “No solution in Cyprus is no solution.”

3. So what needs to be done if the Cyprus problem is to be solved and not neglected? The first essential requirement is to keep the present U.N.-sponsored negotiating process going and to continue to give it the Security Council’s and Greece and Turkey’s full support. It needs to be sustained through whatever vicissitudes electoral shifts on either side in Cyprus may throw at it. Progress may have been painfully slow since the process resumed two years ago, but progress there has been particularly on issues of the governance of a newly re-united Cyprus. The other big issues, of property, territory and security now need to be addressed with equal determination. Why persevere with a framework and a format which has so far yielded so few results? Because there are no obviously viable, or even remotely viable, alternatives. The framework of a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation was set by agreement from the two sides as long ago as 1977. Since then there have been sporadic attempts to break away from that framework, for example Rauf Denktash’s ideas for a confederation. Such ideas have not evoked a scintilla of support and are no more likely to do so in the future than in the past. The same is true of attempts to break away from the format of negotiations between the leaders of the two communities under the aegis of the U.N. Again, suggestions have been made of an EU-led process or of the involvement of the two parts of Cyprus and of Greece and Turkey. But these are displacement activities fated to get nowhere.

4. I will spare you a long meander through the details of the main component parts of the Cyprus problem – governance, property, security and territory. Suffice it to point out that in the period from 2002 to 2004, for the first time, all the elements needed for a comprehensive settlement of all these matters were put on the negotiating table. Of course those elements, in the form they were then presented, led to the split outcomes of the two referendums in the spring of 2004. So changes there will have to be if a deal is to be struck. If only one could get away from the zero-sum calculations to which Cypriots on both sides of the divide are so devoted and could recognize that changes to deal with sensitive points for one of the parties do not necessarily and involve precisely equivalent damage to, or concessions by the other, then the prospects for progress would greatly improve. One reason for avoiding making detailed suggestions, as to what needs to be changed, is that such changes must emerge from a process of give and take between the two Cypriot parties and not seem to be being imposed from the outside. In 2004, it was just too easy for opponents of the Annan Plan to say that it was simply a great power diktat. On this occasion, if an agreement is to emerge, it must involve the firm commitment of the leaders of both communities and a willingness to back the outcome in the referendums, which will have to follow.

5. You may or you may not find this analysis reasonably convincing. But you will surely ask why should such an approach work this time when it has failed to work so often in the past? And you would be right to pose that question, to which there is currently no fully satisfactory answer. Because there is a crucial piece missing from the equation, namely the fate of Turkey’s bid to join the EU. For 15 years or so now, and for the foreseeable future, the chances of a settlement of Cyprus problem have revolved around and been inseparably linked to the progress being made in the bids of Cyprus and of Turkey to join the EU. What started during the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s of the last century as an international dispute with heavy Cold War overtones has now metamorphosed into a European conundrum. In the first phase, after the end of the Cold War, the key question was whether the EU would make it an absolute condition for Cyprus joining the EU that there should be a prior settlement of the Cyprus problem. In the next phase the key question was whether the negotiations to settle the Cyprus problem could be brought to a head and insight of a successful conclusion while Cyprus’ accession to negotiations were still under way and all parties, the Greek Cypriots most notably, could have been pressed by the EU to seal a deal. That question too was answered in the negative when Cyprus’ EU accession treaty was signed in 2003; and when a divided Cyprus was admitted the following year. Now we are in a third phase when the key factor is Turkey’s own accession bid which could be at stake, but when, so far at least, the divisions within the EU over Turkey’s eventual accession have prevented that factor from coming fully into play as the driver of a Cyprus solution.

6. None so far emerges from this sequence with very much credit. The EU cut the ground from under the U.N. when they removed the need for a Cyprus solution as a condition for EU membership. Rauf Denktash ensured by his negative attitude that the long period of Cyprus’ accession negotiations could not be used in any effective way to bring about a solution. And Tassos Papadopoulos drove a stake through the heart of the Anna Plan. And now those within the EU who most vociferously oppose Turkish accession and work to slow down the negotiations are most surely undermining the rationale of the Cyprus negotiations. The fact that that group includes not only France, Germany and Austria but Cyprus too is indeed a bitter irony since it is Cyprus that stands to gain most both politically and economically from Turkey’s accession, assuming that one discounts, as I do, any chance of Turkey joining the EU while the status quo in Cyprus continues; and it is Cyprus that stands to lose the most if Turkey’s accession bid flounders, because in those circumstances I would predict with considerable confidence that there will not be a Cyprus solution.

7. Does that mean one should lose hope over Cyprus? I do not think so. So long as there is life in Turkey’s accession negotiations, and that means for as long as Turkey, in Harold Wilson’s phrase when confronted with General de Gaulle’s second veto of Britain’s accession, refused to take “no” for an answer, then there will be real hope for a Cyprus settlement. That argues against trying to get artificial deadlines in the Cyprus negotiation; that has never worked in the past and seems no more likely to work now. It has arguments against using too much of that stock in trade of the frustrated international negotiator’s talk of last chances. But it does argue powerfully in favor of the EU making a renewed effort to negotiate Turkey’s accession in good faith and with the will to get to the end of the road. Of course that will not happen for Cyprus reasons alone; but Cyprus is one among other very good reasons why it ought to happen.

*Lord David Hannay was the British special representative for Cyprus. This piece was abridged from a speech he made at a conference held by Salzburg Global Seminar on May 11.

, 19 May 2010

May 21, 2010
UN envoy De Soto urges EU to end KKTC’s isolation

Former UN envoy De Soto urges EU to end KKTC’s isolation;

Alvaro de Soto, the UN secretary-general’s former special adviser on Cyprus, has said the European Union should, as promised, end the isolation of Turkish Cypriots to help find a lasting solution to the problems on the long-divided island.
Mr de Soto stated that it would only be fair for the EU live up to its promises to the Turkish inhabitants of northern Cyprus. Noting that he believes that the EU should comply with its commitments to the Turkish Cypriots, he said this would drive Turkey to open its ports to traffic from Greek Cyprus. Turkey refuses to do so as long as theTurkish Cypriots continue to be subjected to isolation, which the EU had promised to end following the Greek Cypriot rejection of the Annan plan in 2004 while the Turkish side overwhelmingly approved it.
The former UN envoy argued that one reason that prompted the Greek Cypriots to reject the Annan plan aimed at reunifying the island six years ago could be that they felt they were in an advantageous position because they were going to join the EU. He added that another reason was that the Greek Cypriots did not study the plan as carefully as the Turkish Cypriots and were therefore not completely aware of what it would have meant for them.
De Soto also assessed the prospects of resolving the issue through the bilateral talks initiated by Greek Cypriot leader Dimitris Christofias and former Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC) President Mehmet Ali Talat on Sept. 3, 2008. Talat was unseated by Dervis Eroglu at the presidential elections held a month ago.
He said both sides have agreed to a bi-communal, bi-zonal federal state solution as a compromise, though it was not either side’s preference. Stating that the parties have agreed to terms of reference for the talks, he said:“There is a new basis. I see that even Mr. Eroglu has agreed to continue on the same basis. They are pursuing a bi-zonal, bi-communal federal solution, the results of which would have to be a state of single international legal personality and sovereignty, and that is in conformity with the Annan plan as far as I can tell.” He added that it is a “good thing” to see Eroglu pledge to continue the talks from where they left off. Christofias and Eroglu are scheduled to hold the 72nd meeting of the reunification talks on May 26.
De Soto lastly discussed the reason for his resignation from his last post at the UN in 2007 as the special coordinator for the Middle East peace process. He said he resigned because the UN refused to talk with Hamas.“In the Quartet, the UN decided not to deal with Hamas even though Hamas had been democratically elected in an election that has been praised by the observers, including the EU observers. Even though this was the case, the UN stopped dealing with the government of the Palestinian authority, and that was a mistake. I tried to get things changed, and when I was not successful, I left the UN,” he said.
17 May 2010, Monday

Topix

May 18, 2010
Israel minister feared UK arrest

Israeli minister and former military chief Moshe Yaalon

Mr Yaalon was military chief of staff at the time of the Shehadeh attack

cancelled a UK visit because of fears of arrest for alleged war crimes, his office says.

Pro-Palestinian groups in Britain want Mr Yaalon to face trial over the 2002 killing of a Gaza militant, in which 14 others also died.

Mr Yaalon took legal advice and wanted “to avoid playing into the hands of anti-Israel propaganda”, an aide said.

A similar attempt last week failed to get Israel’s defence minister arrested.

Mr Yaalon, who is vice prime minister and strategic affairs minister, had been invited to attend a charity dinner held by the Jewish National Fund’s UK branch.

But his spokesman, Alon Ofek-Arnon, confirmed that the foreign ministry’s legal team had advised against it.

Israeli media reported that the advisers believed Mr Yaalon would not be accorded diplomatic immunity – in contrast to Defence Minister Ehud Barak who visited the Labour Party Conference in Brighton without interference.

“This is a campaign whose goal is to de-legitimise the state,” Mr Yaalon said in remarks quoted by Haaretz newspaper.

Allegations against Mr Yaalon date back to July 2002, when an Israel Air force jet dropped a one-tonne bomb in a densely populated area of Gaza to assassinate senior Hamas figure Salah Shehada.

The attack was part of Israel’s policy of “targeted killings” of Palestinian militants it blamed for plotting attacks against it.

At the time, the army expressed regret about the deaths of the 14 civilians, at least eight of them children. in addition to Mr Shehada and said they had come about as the result of faulty intelligence.

Britain has adopted the legal principle of “universal jurisdiction”, under which domestic courts in countries around the world can try war crimes suspects, even if the crime took place outside the country and the suspect is not a citizen.

Palestinian campaigners sought Mr Barak’s arrest last week, in connection with Israel’s controversial military operation in Gaza in December 2008 and January 2009, but judges declined to hear the case.

A UN report by international prosecutor Richard Goldstone accused both Israel and Hamas of war crimes. Israel rejected its findings.

BBC

October 6, 2009
Is Ahmadinejad a ‘Gift’ for Israel?

By ROBERT MACKEY

Reasonable, concise and measured, the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas demonstrated how not to get attention during an address to the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Friday.

On Friday, just three days after basking in the spotlight of international attention — meeting with President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel in New York to talk about reviving the Middle East peace process — Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, gave an address to the United Nations General Assembly devoid of histrionics that was almost completely ignored.

To a certain extent Mr. Abbas was simply unlucky to have been scheduled to speak on the same day that the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program flared up and dominated the news cycle. But even before President Obama accused Iran of building a uranium enrichment facility in secret, the Palestinian leader and the concerns of his people were marginalized when the Mr. Netanyahu chose to focus, in his address to the General Assembly on Thursday, on the threat from Iran and the fact that its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, expressed doubts about the Holocaust last week.

Daniel Acker/Bloomberg Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel showed a Nazi document on plans for the Holocaust at the United Nations.

Despite the fact that Mr. Ahmadinejad defied expectations by not mentioning the Holocaust at all during his address to the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday — five days after he reportedly called the killing of six million Jews by Nazi Germany “a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim” — Mr. Netanyahu began his address on Thursday in New York with an outraged rebuttal of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s repeated questioning of the historical record.

Near the start of his address, Mr. Netanyahu said:

Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.

Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee. There, on January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people. The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments. Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews.

Is this a lie?

A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler’s deputy, Heinrich Himmler, himself. Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?

Mr. Netanyahu went on to call the moral legitimacy of the United Nations into question for letting Mr. Ahmadinejad speak at all, and chastised delegates who sat through the Iranian president’s speech, in which he called Israel “racist” and said its treatment of the Palestinians amounted to “genocide.” As can be seen in this video report from Al Jazeera, Mr. Netanyau also said: “The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”

There is no doubt that Mr. Netanyahu is outraged by Mr. Ahmadinejad’s claims about the Holocaust, but his decision to engage so passionately with Iran’s president, while all but ignoring the conflict at home, also helped to change the subject from a conversation that presents difficulties for Israel’s leader — how to make peace with Palestinians without alienating his supporters — to one that allows him to seize the moral high ground.

The arc of the conversation this week in New York — moving from discussions of Middle East peace on Tuesday, to the protests against Mr. Ahmadinejad on Wednesday, to Mr. Netanyahu’s presentation of documentary evidence of the Holocaust on Thursday and to the full-blown international argument on Friday about Iran’s nuclear weapons — was undoubtedly more favorable to Israel’s prime minister than if Iran had been removed from the equation and the world had spent four days talking about Israel’s refusal to stop expanding its settlements on the West Bank.

The way the week played out instead recalls an observation made last year by a former head of the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad, who told an Arab-language satellite channel that Iran’s current president is, paradoxically, very good for Israel.

As a reader of The Lede pointed out, last year, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that the former intelligence chief, Ephraim Halevy, called Mr. Ahmadinejad a “gift,” since his inflammatory anti-Israel rhetoric “unites the entire world against Iran.”

In remarks Haaretz said were made in an interview with Al Hurra, an American-financed Arabic channel, Mr. Halevy claimed that Iran’s president served a vital Israeli interest by helping to make the case that Iran’s current government is “impossible to live with.” He added: “We couldn’t carry out a better operation at the Mossad than to put a guy like Ahmadinejad in power in Iran.”

In the same article, Haaretz noted that another former senior Mossad officer, who served under Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, told Time magazine that Israeli hardliners were wrong to say that Iran posed an “existential threat” to Israel. “Iran’s achievement,” the former intelligence official said, “is creating an image of itself as a scary superpower when it’s really a paper tiger.”

Earlier this week, The Lede noted that some analysts were asking if Iran’s president was trying to change the subject, from questions about the legitimacy of his election to his defiant stands on Iran’s nuclear program and Israel’s legitimacy as a state. As the week ends, the conversation has certainly shifted, but perhaps in a way that Mr. Ahmadinejad will be less than happy about.

Finally, we should note that in an interview with Akiva Elder published Haaretz in 2003, Mr. Abbas denied that he had denied the Holocaust in a book based on his doctoral dissertation:

The question about whether he denied the Holocaust in his Ph.D. angers Abbas. “I wrote in detail about the Holocaust and said I did not want to discuss numbers. I quoted an argument between historians in which various numbers of casualties were mentioned. One wrote there were 12 million victims and another wrote there were 800,000. I have no desire to argue with the figures. The Holocaust was a terrible, unforgiveable crime against the Jewish nation, a crime against humanity that cannot be accepted by humankind. The Holocaust was a terrible thing and nobody can claim I denied it.”

Source: thelede.blogs.nytimes.com, September 25, 2009

September 27, 2009