Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

Russian perspective on I/P conflict

by FarEasterner Tue Jun 8th, 2010 at 01:13:43 PM EST

I already mentioned positions on I/P conflict which the third world countries have taken in view of the seizure of humanitarian convoy by Israel.

FarEasterner: In the third world ... governments are not friends of Israel (evident from UN Human Rights commision) but long ago discarded policies to antagonize the West over the plight of Palestinians.

Today I came across very interesting article on the topic written by Fyodor Lukyanov editor-in-chief of "Russia in Global Affairs" magazine, leading diplomatic magazine in Moscow. You might see Fyodor sometimes on BBC, Zeina Badawi used to invite him for express analysis of Russian foreign policy. For magazine I contributed a couple of articles on my region in the past. His article I translated in full because there is no English variant on the web, I hope I did not make any mistakes.


Russia in Global Affairs: Middle Eastern knot

The seizure of Israeli special forces humanitarian convoy provoked an international crisis, the scale of which, however, should not be overestimated.

Noisy response to Israeli use of force - something familiar. However, long-term effect may be serious.

The fact that the organizers of "Freedom flotilla" were motivated by not mere empathy towards Gazans - obvious. Willing violation of a naval blockade is a political act that has nothing to do with the humanitarian mission. In what proportion human rights activists and provocateurs were aboard should be and will be determined by impartial investigation. However [such investigation] is unlikely to take place, since both parties - Israeli and pro-Palestinian - do not seem interested.


Realistic beginning which may not be tasteful for pro-Palestinian lobby.

Therefore, the question [to be answered] is not who to blame, but who in the long term will lose more. Most likely it will be Israel.

That's interesting...


The end of the Cold War had brought to the Jewish state many benefits. Aliya from the former Soviet Union abundantly filled up the human capital of Israel, traditionally its main asset, and the Arab world lost its patron - the political and military. On other side patron of Israel - United States - has become a dominant force throughout the world, significantly strengthening the political-military positions elsewhere, including in the Middle East. The first Gulf War was a blow to Saddam Hussein while Yasser Arafat for his support of the occupation of Kuwait was obstructed - everything promised Israelis a safer era.

The part which might be omitted...


But the spirit of change that swept the world with the end of the Cold War affected the Middle East in other dimensions.

First, the disappearance of the Soviet Union has not eliminated the threat of radicalism, and made it even less controlled. Lack of military-technical and financial support extremists quickly compensated either through new Arab sponsors, or by exploiting chaos in the postcommunist world. [At the same time] A restraining political influence, which the Soviets at least partly exercised, had gone.

Secondly, the disappearance of the bipolarity of the world opened to the United States new opportunities. Israel has remained a key ally, but not as indispensable, exclusive as before the fall of the Iron Curtain.

Thirdly, the momentum of democratization had increased pressure on Israel to reach agreement on the establishment of Palestinian state.


Also uncontroversial part. Pro-Israelis may argue that their protegee is still indispensable but I agree with Fyodor.


The peace process since 1990 ended in failure after few years, yet it completely unbalanced the situation that existed before. Eventually the final blow was delivered by George Bush.

Neo-conservative administration, on the one hand, was considered the most pro-Israel and [succeeded] in destroying the sworn enemy of the Jewish state Saddam Hussein. On the other hand as a result of [these wars] overall situation in the Middle East has deteriorated, and much touted "free elections" in Palestine just legitimized Hamas which thrown the peace process into deep freeze.


The end of historical part...


So what is the bottomline? The idea of the peace process discredited itself, especially in front of Israeli society, as reflected in the adopted political line. Hardening of positions on the Israeli government happened against a background of opposite trends in the West while arrival of more moderate forces is not forthcoming because of belligerent public opinion in Israel. In Europe, which has always had strong left and liberal tendencies, the informal taboo on opposing the policy of the Jewish state, associated with a sense of guilt for the genocide of European Jews during the Second World War, was weakened. In the United States there is growing dissatisfaction with the American policy in the Middle East becoming hostage to support of one state.

These are recent observations which are not common yet in the third world. Lukyanov noticed the momentum the progressive movement enjoys in the West. This point will be important at least for Russian political thinking, currently there are no "progressives" in Russia (so-called "Liberals" like Yulia Latynina still ape neo-conservatives), and I suspect that Medvedev and Putin will be the first to exploit this opportunity, Surkov reportedly already is plotting overhaul of their public images which will be made palatable to the emerging Western paradygm.


The Obama administration is cautiously exploring options for diversification, especially in view of the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict overshadows Washington's relations not only with the Arabs, but also with Muslims generally. Drastic steps for the U.S. are not possible by definition - support of Israel is a symbol of faith for very influential circles in America, but a [changed] trend has emerged. It was reflected in arrival on stage (by assumption with tacit support of influential figures in the administration) of new Jewish lobbying groups opposed to the traditional Israeli lobby, such as the "J-Street", which has also European counterparts. Then even discussion on official level of Israeli nuclear weapons few years ago in America was unthinkable.

This is another current observation, it's funny that like Kremlinologists Lukyanov sees "the hand of Obama" in emergence of J-Street.


These unfavorable changes to Israel are juxtaposed to diminishing returns of actions of the Jewish state. The most important are lack of a coherent logic in the military actions and much reduced efficiency of them. Logic was blurred apparently by increased external pressure. Since early 1990's when under pressure from the West Israel embarked on the peace process, this state found itself wrapped in endless web of conditionalities associated with the duplicity of negotiating partner. It was impossible to separate interlocutors from terrorists. When Yasser Arafat was alive there was no difference, in fact the founder of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), had played all the cards. The split between Fatah and Hamas, it seemed, has created an opportunity for playing "good" against "bad", but the triumph of Hamas in the elections have messed things up ... As a result, Israel can't discuss political solution and can't fight [terrorists]. And even agreeing to a Palestinian state does not seem possible, because of irreconciliable split in Palestinian leadership there is no single interlocutor there who could take up the task of building viable functioning state.

The second point is related to the first. In past decades, by sheer superiority in the Middle East Israel could effectively solve almost any problems by use of force (except for a final political settlement, but it was not pursued). Now it is not obvious. Most revealing in this sense was the war with the Shiite militia Hezbollah in summer 2006. Then, despite the loud international protests, majority of influential players, including the Arab world, would be satisfied if Israel clean south Lebanon out and weaken Hezbollah, behind which Iran was looming. And the international community, in fact, was dragging time, giving Israel the opportunity to complete the "dirty work". Yet despite the damage, the Lebanese Shiites can argue that Israel did not achieve its goals. The operation in Gaza in late 2008 - early 2009's has been more effective, however its objectives, in reducing fighting capacity of Hamas (and more in removing Hamas from power) it spectacularly failed. Israel complains about the international reaction, which forced a cessation of hostilities, but if we compare the operation with the wars of 1960-1970's, the Jewish state had more time, but efficiency was markedly lower. Finally, the seizure of "Freedom flotilla" was executed in a way which cast doubts on professionalism of Israeli intelligence and special forces, who were not prepared for unexpected situation on ships and in the end they left bloody trail which was an image disaster for the country.


I agree with both his points, about lack of logic of Israeli military operations and their reduced efficiency. Lukyanov's analysis is unfavourable for Israel.


Scenarios for the future appear gloomy. Sensing the decline of international support, Israel will take more radical steps, trying to rely on own resources for survival, as well as encouraging the most conservative opponents of Obama in the United States. The Arab side, by contrast, feels emboldened by increased support from outside and will try to increase pressure on Israel. In these circumstances, the more remarkable is position of Turkey, which apparently played a key role in the recent incident: Ankara, it seems, does not consider relations with Israel a priority anymore. It is also important to note that relations with Israel were pursued mostly by Turkish military, which are under intense pressure inside Turkey. All taken together there will be further tightening of already tight Middle Easten knot until it will be blown up by a major conflict, for example associated with Iran. Maybe Israel will initiate with expectation that the United States won't have choice but to support it. Yet everybody in the world of politics will have to face consequences.

[all italics are mine]

The final part of the article is more open to criticism, at least I don't see immediate threat of big war in Middle East and I attribute the gloomy shades of Lukyanov's conclusion only to timing of his writing, the article appeared on June 3, just days after Israeli raid.

I believe the sense will eventually prevail on all sides, but we have to prepare for a rough ride ahead.

Display:
I believe the sense will eventually prevail on all sides, but we have to prepare for a rough ride ahead.

I can't imagine what 'sense' is anymore, and I am tired of being made to equate the two sides, that each has to come to the table, sensitive to certain realities. The hardline, ultra-right-wing, death-to-all-and-we-want-Babylon-too crowd has been able to completely take over all discourse in upper level political Israel. It was always a major thread with a long term plan, sometimes obvious but left unstated, sometimes realized internally and shamefully never confronted...and always handled with extraordinary PR.

Putting the blame on Obama or Saddam or a butterfly over the Pacific is disingenuous...although I agree that GW and his hardline, right-wing death-to-all-and-we-want-Babylon-and-Israel-too crowd used the problem for their own 'Gawd can't come until Israel is an inferno' masturbatory dramatizations. But it didn't change the course of Israeli politics or change the horrors for the non-Jewish people who live in the area.

Whatever parts of Israel that was a beneficent dream of potential is now long gone. At one time perhaps it could be said that the Stern Gang et al did what they did, but it wasn't what most of the people wanted...they wanted to farm and build things...unfortunately, like the Europeans' who continue to survive on the fruits of their mass slaughters of the colonial period, there has been too much killing for anyone to not have their hands forever bloodied. And people don't look at their bloody hands, step back and say, "Gee, I did something wrong, I better make up the damage done and re-apply for admittance in the group that I so horribly let down." Rather, they say, "I was right, and I am going to do it again, and in spades, to prove that I was right."

If one looks around in a 360 degree circle, one can possibly find a solution that does not contain pain and misery for at least on of the groups invovled, but it won't carry with it the sense of privilege that the wackos want to impose upon a group of their genetic brothers. Including that as an acceptable premise and swinging the 360 degrees view from that point insures only pain.

Absence of sense.

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Tue Jun 8th, 2010 at 03:33:02 PM EST
Very good description of how the "sense" is lost in such dehumanizing bitter conflicts as I/P. It's up for the sides in this conflict to rediscover such "sense" and first of all for their backers, European and American, Canadian, Middle Eastern governments.

If they cannot do it while continuing to be relected with thumping majority, what others should do? I am personally in favour that Russia should not be "active" participant of Middle Eastern conflicts as in Soviet times. If Russia (or anybody else) tries to break Gaza blockade the West will immediately jump into defense of Israel with not only "Cold War" cries but very likely apocalyptic WWIII rhetorics. Do pro-Palestinian Westerners want that?

The region which is no more of global economic importance and with long pestering conflicts is left for the stewardship of "The West Inc", Msrs. Obama, Sarkozy, Merkel. All complains should be addressed to them.

by FarEasterner on Thu Jun 10th, 2010 at 02:37:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
European Tribune - Russian perspective on I/P conflict

The final part of the article is more open to criticism, at least I don't see immediate threat of big war in Middle East and I attribute the gloomy shades of Lukyanov's conclusion only to timing of his writing, the article appeared on June 3, just days after Israeli raid.

I believe the sense will eventually prevail on all sides, but we have to prepare for a rough ride ahead.

I would share Lukyanov's analysis and have my doubts about your optimism.  Israel is quite capable of Bombing Iran and expecting the US to give tacit support.  Obama would be incensed because it will put his Iraqi and Afghani withdrawals at risk, but what can he do to stop it, or limit the damage if Israel does Bomb?  And Europe will wring its hands as usual.

So it's business as usual then, for the only nuclear power in the Middle East.  (I would count Pakistan as being more engaged with the India/China/Afghanistan region and effectively outside the I/P theatre of war).

Frank's Home Page and Diary Index

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Jun 8th, 2010 at 04:01:56 PM EST
Well I dont see how its going to happen now

For one thing, for an air attack to work, you'd have to fly though US or Turkish controlled airspace. US controlled is out as it would disrupt the US's Iraq and Afghanistan situation (And the US general in charge has been pushing out not-so-coded messages about this) And since a week ago the Turkish military aren't in a position to allow overflights of their territory.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Jun 8th, 2010 at 08:37:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Does Israel not have Missiles capable of hitting Iran?  And would the US shoot down Israeli bombers that defied their control of Iraqi airspace?  I have a lot more faith in Israeli ruthlessness than I have in Obama's ability to call their bluff...

Frank's Home Page and Diary Index
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Jun 8th, 2010 at 08:41:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Its not that just bombers, you're going to have to stage Tankers out over closer to the Iranian border. This can't be done without the apparent permission of the US. If that happens then instantly a large part of the middle east becomes too unfriendly to run the support and supply of the Iraq and Afghanistan operations out of. I'm sure that the generals will have informed him of this, and although he may vacillate (And for the right I think its a no win situation for him, he'll either be painted as someone who is standing up for Muslims against America if he stops Israel, or he'll be painted as someone who betrayed the army if he lets the attack go ahead) I do really think he has no real choice but to stop any Israeli attack, unless he wants to see NATO retreating over the same bridge the Russians left over 20 years ago

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Jun 8th, 2010 at 09:18:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh and from What I can see, they have missiles that can hit Iran in a general way, but nothing accurate enough  to do the job without Nuclear warheads

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Jun 8th, 2010 at 09:51:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Report: Israel to deploy nuclear-armed submarines off Iran coast

By Haaretz Service

Sunday Times quotes IDF official saying the 3 German-made long range submarines will gather intelligence, act as deterrent and potentially land Mossad agents.

Israel is to deploy three submarines equipped with nuclear cruise missiles in the Persian Gulf, the Sunday Times reported on Sunday.

According to the Times report, one submarine had been sent over Israeli fears that ballistic missiles developed by Iran, and in the possession of Syria and Hezbollah, could be used to hit strategic sites within Israel, such as air bases and missile launchers.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-israel-to-deploy-nuclear-armed-submarines-off-i ran-coast-1.293005




by shergald on Tue Jun 8th, 2010 at 10:10:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
NTI: Submarine: Israel Capabilities
Some reports suggest that Israel has adapted Harpoon cruise missiles, which have a range of 130 kilometers, to carry an indigenously developed nuclear warhead and guidance system, though other experts argue that such modifications to a Harpoon missile are not feasible.[6] Others believe that Israel has developed an indigenous cruise missile with a range of 320 kilometers that is believed to be a version of Rafael Armament Development Authority's Popeye turbo cruise missile.[7]


Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Wed Jun 9th, 2010 at 08:08:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm inclined to agree.  Israel would need the US to at least stay out of the way in order to attack Iran, and I can't imagine the US military allowing that, given what the generals have been saying.

That said, it wouldn't be the first time we've put Israel above our own soldiers, so who knows?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Jun 9th, 2010 at 07:42:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Business as usual it is, flotilla backlash notwithstanding. But can Israel actually get away with attack Iran? I just don't see it, because I think Israeli analysts are capable of seeing that Iran will retaliate, and the US will feel the brunt of it in terms of a steep recession if only based on the loss of our Middle East oil supply. But Israel will not get away without being seriously damaged. What a foolish idea.

One thing about the article that I was looking for and didn't get was a clear exposure of Israel's goals vis a vis the occupation while it completes the colonization of all of original Palestine. That has been interrupted only once for a few months under the Rabin administration in the 90s. The colonization is the only thing that really bound together Israeli history over the past 43 years.

by shergald on Tue Jun 8th, 2010 at 05:35:34 PM EST
shergald:
The colonization is the only thing that really bound together Israeli history over the past 43 years.

Correct.

And any other issue can and will be mobilised by Israel to distract others from that reality.

Especially the Iran nuke issue. Iran are not remotely a threat, and never have been. Iran will not be attacked because the US will not permit it. The US will not permit it because the Chinese will melt down their economy if they do.

Energy security is as important to the Chinese as it is to the US. ie it comes first, second and third in their priorities.


"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Jun 8th, 2010 at 07:45:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I would say you got most of it. But there's a caveat: when the hell did Israel ever act in the best interest of the US?

by shergald on Tue Jun 8th, 2010 at 10:12:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That line of enquiry was explored here.

In brief, you have to distinguish between acting in the best interest of the US and acting in the best interest of the relevant power blocs within the US.

Israel can piss up and down the back of objective US interests in the region only as long as they keep being an asset to the American armaments industry and a number of corrupt political insiders. Furthermore, the cost of keeping those insiders on their payroll will go up exponentially if they manage to rile up a power bloc that actually matters, such as the Pentagon (the human rights lobby doesn't really count as a power bloc in DC).

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jun 9th, 2010 at 07:49:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sad truths, and one hopes you are right.

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Wed Jun 9th, 2010 at 01:46:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How do you view speculation that Israel presented China a threat to strike down Iran back in February?

Aljazeera: Israel shakes down China

According to The New York Times, "In February, a high-level Israeli delegation travelled to Beijing to present classified evidence of Iran's atomic ambitions.

Then they unveiled the ostensible purpose of their visit: to explain in sobering detail the economic impact to China from an Israeli strike on Iran -- an attack Israel has suggested is all but inevitable should the international community fail to stop Iran from assembling a nuclear weapon.

"The Chinese didn't seem too surprised by the evidence we showed them, but they really sat up in their chairs when we described what a pre-emptive attack would do to the region and on oil supplies they have come to depend on ..."


by FarEasterner on Thu Jun 10th, 2010 at 02:43:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This news of Israeli threat of striking Iran spread like a fire so Israeli officials tried to downplay reports:

AP: China reverses stance with Iran sanctions support

Israel may have also played a role in persuading China to back harsher sanctions against Iran, according to Israeli officials. In recent weeks, three Israeli delegations have gone to China, and all discussed the Iranian nuclear program, the officials said....

The officials said the Israeli delegations did not bring up the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran in the talks with the Chinese government, though it might have been discussed at the initiative of the Chinese.

by FarEasterner on Thu Jun 10th, 2010 at 03:36:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Let's see the original NYT piece - that blockquote from Al Jazeera blogs seems to be a verbatim quote from the NYT. Here's more:
Ties between Israel and China are collegial but Israeli officials have been working hard to regain Beijing's favor since a bungled arms deal in 2000 infuriated Chinese leaders. More recently, they have also had to compete against China's growing thirst for Middle East oil, which makes up half the country's petroleum imports. With its single-minded focus on securing the energy required for continued economic growth, Beijing has shifted some of its diplomatic ardor to the countries of the Middle East, some of which are Israel's sworn enemies.

Alarmed by the shift, Israel has stepped up its soft-power diplomacy through academic, cultural and medical exchanges. "Israel is not a great supplier of the kinds of natural resources that China can find among some of our neighbors but we do have a lot to offer them, and there is a strong sense of mutual respect," said Amos Nadai, the Israeli ambassador to Beijing.

Israeli officials cite some commonalities: their histories as ancient civilizations and the transformative economic growth that has defied conventional wisdom and a yearning for regional stability. Although as vividly demonstrated in the crisis over last week's deadly commando raid on a flotilla of activists -- not to speak of Iran's nuclear program -- Israel is not afraid to threaten that stability in the face of an existential threat.



By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 10th, 2010 at 03:51:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I was looking for and didn't get was a clear exposure of Israel's goals vis a vis the occupation while it completes the colonization of all of original Palestine.

I am not his spokesman but his article was a sort of "express analysis" for Russian media in aftermath of Israeli raid on Mavi Marmira. This is not official Russian position but rather prevalent view on the conflict by influential circles in Moscow and should be considered only as that and no more.  

by FarEasterner on Thu Jun 10th, 2010 at 02:48:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Lukyanov noticed the momentum the progressive movement enjoys in the West. This point will be important at least for Russian political thinking, currently there are no "progressives" in Russia (so-called "Liberals" like Yulia Latynina still ape neo-conservatives), and I suspect that Medvedev and Putin will be the first to exploit this opportunity, Surkov reportedly already is plotting overhaul of their public images which will be made palatable to the emerging Western paradygm.

This is interesting, and probably worth exploring in a diary of its own.

I think the observations of ascendancy for the progressives movement are mistaken. But if Lukyanov is right about what the Kremlin believes, it would open several interesting dimensions in Russo-European relations.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jun 9th, 2010 at 07:55:58 AM EST
Depends as always on what is meant with "progressive". Increasing support for gay rights? The old terror war paroles getting stale? I doubt he means economic policy.
by generic on Thu Jun 10th, 2010 at 07:24:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think it just means a "kinder, gentler" approach to things like civil rights and a more socially just redistribution of wealth.  When the policies in your past you are trying to rectify are Communisms and free-market hysteria, it's interesting to think about what a "progressive" economic policy would look like.  

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
by poemless on Thu Jun 10th, 2010 at 01:59:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"progressive" economic policy is advocated by Communists if "progressive" means increase in social spending.

Putin turned "progressive" recently in view of sliding ratings after years of "austerity" measures. But his instincts are conservative no doubt, and FT "marketistas" just like that:

FT: Back to health: discipline puts Russia's economy on the right track

Investors may be jittery about the fiscal outlook in some central and eastern European countries this year - Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania have all found themselves in the spotlight in recent days. But one country where forecasts are moving in the right direction is Russia.

Russia is cutting its forecast budget deficit to 5.4 per cent of gross domestic product this year - a significant fall from its original projection of 6.8 per cent - thanks to higher prices for commodities, particularly oil. The government will approve revisions to the budget today.

So as you rightly noted Putin's flirt with "progressiveness" likely end up as a parody of David Cameron's attempts to modernize his nasty party, bringing it glitz and glamour of Jeffrey Sachs' types. After Canadian "Progressive Conservative party", British "Progressive Liberal Conservative coalition" should we expect renaming "United Russia" party as "Progressive United Russia"? Not yet, but the good thing is that finally started to notice relentless internet criticism and aspirations of Russian middle classes to have more "normal" system in place.

by FarEasterner on Thu Jun 10th, 2010 at 03:01:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
for the Palestinians:

Pixies cancel Israel gig following Gaza raid
US band call off their debut performance in Israel, saying 'events beyond our control have conspired against us'
Sean Michaels, guardian.co.uk
Monday 7 June 2010 09.53 BST

. . . Even before the events of last week, Pixies were one of several western acts targeted by Israeli human rights activists advocating an artistic boycott of their country. "As much as some of us are huge fans and would love to hear your show, we won't cross the international picket line ... to come and see you," wrote the group Boycott Israel on 1 March. Singer Elvis Costello cancelled two gigs in Israel last month, calling it "a matter of instinct and conscience".

For the sake of both Israelis and Palestinians, I hope the boycott efforts of world 'civil society' succeed. Otherwise, the settlers will have the Israel they want, which hardly anyone else does.

fairleft

by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Wed Jun 9th, 2010 at 01:23:42 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]