Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Gaza Closure Is Causing Food Shortages

By IBRAHIM BARZAK, Associated Press WriterTue Mar 7, 2:31 PM ET

Israel's security closure of Gaza's main cargo crossing has hit the coastal strip hard: milk and cheese have virtually disappeared, fruit is hard to find, and flour is running out.

The shortages could get worse for the 1.3 million residents of Gaza once Hamas formally takes power, with Israel threatening to seal its borders with Gaza altogether once the Islamic militants form a government.

"The world should look at this and find us a solution," said Mustafa Shurab of the Palestinian Mill Co. "Collective punishment is a small word to describe this war."

Shurab said his company supplies about 60 percent of Gaza's flour. But with the Karni cargo crossing closed, his reserves are running out. He said the mill halted work three days ago, and if the crossing isn't reopened, Gaza will run out of bread this week.

Karni is critical for the Palestinian economy. It is the only conduit for Palestinian exports to Israel and overseas markets, and provides the main gateway for goods entering Gaza.

There are no overt signs of hunger in Gaza. But with the area reliant on Israel for dairy products, some fruits and other supplies, the on-and-off closure of Karni for nearly two months has become increasingly painful.

"People are coming and asking for cheese, for milk, and my answer is, 'Sorry, there is nothing left,'" said Hussam Aboud, a grocer in Gaza City, pointing to an empty refrigerator.

Sami Abu Daoud said he went to nine supermarkets Tuesday in a futile search for low-fat milk. The price of regular milk for his children has doubled, he said.

"You can't find an apple in the Gaza Strip," Daoud said. "I don't know why they are doing this. For political reasons? Security reasons? For what?"

Israeli officials say the closure is strictly because of security concerns.

"This is nothing punitive," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev. He said Israel has identified a "definite and specific threat at the crossing" and is eager to reopen Karni. Palestinian militants have targeted the crossing in the past, killing six Israelis in a January 2005 attack.

"We have every reason to want Karni to be open. We understand fully that the movement of food and produce in and out of Gaza is essential," Regev said.

Israeli officials first closed the crossing in January, citing security threats. Palestinian officials subsequently discovered a tunnel nearby and said they sealed it.

Palestinians believe the closure is retribution for Hamas' victory in January legislative elections and say the Israeli government is trying to look tough ahead of Israeli elections this month.

"Israel is using the iron fist policy against our people because of the Israeli election," said Mazen Sonnoqrot, the Palestinian minister for economic affairs. "Our people have to pay a political price for the coming Israeli election."

Boosting cargo traffic through Karni was a key aspect of an agreement brokered by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last November, an accord meant to give momentum to peace efforts after Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip.

The World Bank issued a report this week saying the agreement has not been fully implemented, largely due to "complex, haphazard and inefficient" procedures at Karni. It said traffic through the border is far below levels envisioned in the deal, and that Karni has become a "serious physical barrier to Palestinian trade."

The crossing has been open for just 12 days since Jan. 10, according to Palestinian records.

Further closures could lie ahead. Israel, backed by the United States and the European Union, has said it will have no ties with a Hamas-led government unless the group renounces violence, recognizes Israel and accepts past peace agreements.

Hamas, which is sworn to Israel's destruction, has rejected calls to moderate. The group is expected to form its Cabinet in coming weeks.

Israeli security officials this week confirmed they have drawn up proposals to reduce contacts with the Palestinians. The plan, to be formally presented after the March 28 election, would turn the Gaza crossing into an international border and allow the Palestinians to build air and seaports. The Palestinians would then no longer be able to ship through Israeli ports and crossings.

Source: AP via Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060307/ap_on_re_mi_ea/palestinians_bare_shelves

JEWISH HOLLYWOOD: PARADISE NOW as well as MUNICH both lost and 'minimized'

JEWISH HOLLYWOOD:
PARADISE NOW as well as MUNICH both lost and 'minimized'


The director of Paradise Now, a film centering on two
Palestinians preparing to carry out a suicide bombing,
said he believed pro-Israel lobbying would in the end
cost him the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film.

MER - MiddleEast.Org - Washington - 6 March: While AIPAC storms away in Washington targeting Iran at this year's annual conference which began yesterday -- and further whipping up the flames of the 'Clash of Civilization' it helped so much ignite -- the powerful 'liberal' Jewish community on the West Coast in Hollywood was exercising its power as well.

Paradise Now - nicknamed Hell Now in Israel - not only was nearly totally minimized but it was the only film that didn't come from a country, which is this case is Palestine. And rather than calling it 'Occupied Palestine' or 'Occupied Territories' it was in the end said to be from a place that doesn't exist except in the Israeli lexicon, 'the Palestinian Territories'. Well...American Indians would certainly understand all this; but then nobody watching the Oscars last night would even know there was such a thing as an American Indian.

Not only does the powerful American Jewish community enjoy wielding its power on both coasts in the USA these days but it has a closer than ever working alliance with Israel's leading newspaper, Ha'aretz, as well. And that's where this take on what happened last night was nearly instantly published -- clearly with advance understanding and preparations for what happened just a few hours ago in considerably Jewish Hollywood.

Oh yes, no tribute either to that Lion of Hollywood at the 'Jewish' Oscars, to the man who was just about the only major Arab American film-maker in their midst; though Jon Stewart did noteably made a number of 'Jewish' jokes and illusions throughout the evening. Mustapha Akkad was blown up last year in a terrorist attack at a hotel in Amman -- what more excuse did they need? Akkad was continuing his own cinematic coup fantasy quest to make a blockbuster Hollywood epic movie about one of the most legendary Arab heroes in history, Salaadin.



So what if the Jews run Hollywood?
By Bradley Burston


Ha'aretz, Tel Aviv - 6 March: You could hear it right away. The grumbles about how the Jews run Hollywood, how the Israelis tell them what how to think, what to exalt, what to censor.

How if someone dares depart from the party line on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the Holocaust, or the Jewish leadership in the time of Jesus, the forces of retribution will visit ruin upon them and upon their distributors domestic and foreign.

In remarks published two days before the ceremony, Hany Abu-Assad, the director of Paradise Now, a film centering on two Palestinians preparing to carry out a suicide bombing, said he believed pro-Israel lobbying would in the end cost him the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film.

"I can write off an Oscar win right now," Abu-Assad said.

"The Oscars are a complex matter, and I believe that in the end, if there is a close call, what will work against me will be two or three conservatives, even if the majority votes with its heart."

For his part, Steven Spielberg faced an unaccustomed storm of Jewish protest when he released Munich, which raises questions about Israel's assassination policy in the fight against terrorism.

"So many fundamentalists in my own community, the Jewish community, have grown very angry at me for allowing the Palestinians simply to have dialogue and for allowing Tony Kushner to be the author of that dialogue," Spielberg told Newsweek last month.

According to Spielberg, "'Munich' never once attacks Israel, and barely criticizes Israel's policy of counterviolence against violence. It simply asks a plethora of questions. It's the most questioning story I've ever had the honor to tell. For that, we were accused of the sin of moral equivocation. Which, of course, we didn't intend - and we're not guilty of."

It was only natural, then, that when Steven Spielberg's Munich failed to win the Oscar for Best Picture, and when Paradise Now lost out as Best Foreign Language film, the predictions of battalions of anti-Semites and radical Muslims were borne out.

So what?

In fact, so what if Jews rule Hollywood? So what if they always have?

Leave aside, for the moment, the historical context, the fact that immigrant Eastern European Jews, rejected and dismissed not only by the White Anglo Saxon Protestants that actually ran and still run things, but also by the German Jewish aristocracy of New York, sought - and built - a promised land in a direction opposite to this one.

They went to the very edge of the world, a semi-arid basin of orange trees and chicken ranches and, yes, anti-Semites. They remade the world from scratch. The invention of movies was the algebra of the 20th century.

Were they mercenary and money-grubbing, uncouth and ruthless, sappy and shallow and sentimental and insensitive? Were they ever. And why not? They were, after all, in a headlong hurry to become, for lack of a better term, Americans.

And so to the present case. A few vignettes:

The Academy ruled last week on a petition by a group of Israelis who had lost children to Palestinian suicide bombings. The group asked that Paradise Now be disqualified. The Academy accepted a petition with more than 32,000 signatures, but denied the request.

Yossi Zur, whose teenage son Asaf was killed in a bus bombing, said "What they call 'Paradise Now' we call 'hell now', each and every day."

"It is a mission of the free world not to give such movies a prize."

Certainly, Zur's feelings are more than understandable. However, if Hollywood has really taught us anything, it is this: The mission of the free world is to make money.

It has also taught us something else. Hollywood Jews are no good at making films about Jews. It took a Nebraska-born Anglo-Saxon Protestant, Darrell Zanuck, to finally tackle anti-Semitism in a film, the 1947 Gentleman's Agreement, which he made over the vocal objections of Hollywood's corps of Jewish studio moguls.

Another of the controversies that studded the run-up to the Oscars was a debate over the exact country which Paradise Now was representing. Abu-Assad maintained throughout that, just as it had been in the Golden Globes, the film should be designated as an entry from Palestine.

Indeed, The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences initially referred to the film on its Web site as a submission from Palestine. But lobbying, negotiations, calls fpressures and endless conferences yielded the decision that the film would represent the Palestinian Authority.

That decision infuriated Abu-Assad, who called it a slap at the Palestinian people and their national identity.

"It's not like suddenly if you change your name, you didn't exist before," he said Tuesday. "If it's (Palestine) under occupation, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

In the end, the film was listed as representing the Palestinian Territories.

It might be noted, that in many cases the example of Gentlemen's Agreement has worked to the advantage of the Muslim and Arab world for years, as Jewish executives, editors, producers, reporters and others in the news media bent over backwards to serve up the Palestinian and Arab cause in as flattering a David versus Goliath pose as possible.

The fact is, that it took brutal, self-defeating, inhuman terrorism on a global level to level the playing field, so that Jews, even the settler villains of foreign news set pieces, could be portrayed as human beings.


Source: Middle East Realities
http://www.middleeast.org/read.cgi?category=Magazine...

Mofaz: Hamas PM Could Be Israeli Target

44 minutes ago

Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz warned that Hamas's Palestinian prime minister-designate Ismail Haniya would not be immune from assassination if the radical Islamists carried out attacks.

"From the moment when Hamas continues on the path of terrorism, nobody in the movement will benefit from immunity," Mofaz said when asked on army radio about the possibility of Haniya being subject to a targeted killing operation.

Haniya has been tasked by Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas to form a government following Hamas's massive victory in a January 25 general election.

Hamas has carried out dozens of anti-Israeli suicide attacks during the course of a five-year Palestinian uprising although none in the past 12 months.

Two Hamas leaders, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Abdelaziz al-Rantissi, were killed in Israeli air strikes two years ago. Haniya was also present with Yassin during an earlier assassination attempt in September 2003.

More recently, Israel has targeted leaders of the extremist Islamic Jiahd movement which has continued to carry out attacks, including seven suicide bombings in the past year.

Two members of Jihad died in an air strike on Gaza City on Monday but three children were also killed in the attack, which prompted stinging international criticism from the United Nations.

Mofaz vowed that the so-called targeted killing operations would continue. "This policy is just and it will be pursued," he said, adding that the strikes were carried out with "surgical precision".

Questioned specifically about the deaths of an eight-year-old and two 15-year-old boys in Monday's strike, Mofaz said he was "sorry when civilians are hit."

"But if you weigh the advantages and disadvantages (of targeted killings), you can see that when we acted against Hamas, the situation changed. For this to work with Jihad, we need a little bit of patience," he added.

The commander of Israel's air force, Eliezer Shkedy, said his forces made every effort not to hurt civilians but that in war it was not always possible.

"We are making superhuman efforts not to hurt those who are not involved in terrorism but we do not succeed every time. It's a war," he told army radio.

The UN Middle East peace envoy, Alvaro de Soto, stressed his opposition to what he called "extra-judicial killings, for reasons which include the danger they pose to innocent bystanders.

"While recognising Israel's right to defend itself, particularly from rocket attacks, I call on the Israeli military authorities to desist from extra-judicial killings and show maximum restraint at this delicate time."

Mofaz's comments about Haniya come amid the countdown to an Israeli general election on March 28, with the ruling Kadima party keen to deflect any suggestion they are "soft on terrorism."

Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the right-wing opposition Likud party, has claimed Hamas's victory was a direct result of the government's decision to pull troops and settlers out of the Islamists' Gaza Strip stronghold last year.

Another leading Kadima candidate, the former Shin Beth internal security chief Avi Dichter, also threatened Haniya over the weekend.

"If Haniya and his people continue their policy of terror and assassinations when they are in power, they will find themselves behind bars or joining Sheikh Yassin," said Dichter.

Hamas reacted to Mofaz's comments by accusing Israel of conducting "state terrorism".

"Hamas does not fear these threats and blackmail. We are committed to the defence of our rights and our people whatever the price," spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri told AFP.

"These comments by the Israeli defence minister are an illustration of state terrorism."

Source: AFP via Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060307/wl_mideast_afp/mideastisraelunresthamas...

Monday, March 06, 2006

France Says Sikhs Must Remove Turbans

Mon Mar 6, 5:52 PM ET

France's highest administrative body ruled Monday that Sikhs must remove their turbans for driver's license photos, calling it a question of public security and not a restriction on freedom of religion.

The Council of State's ruling reversed its own decision in December in favor of Shingara Mann Singh, a French citizen who refused to take off his turban for a license photo in 2004.

The case gained attention amid tensions between France's religious minorities and the government over a law banning conspicuous religious signs in public schools, aimed at Islamic headscarves.

For Sikhs, the turban is an article of faith.

Singh took his case to the Council of State, which ruled in December that he could wear his turban because a ban on covering the head in official photos came from the Interior Ministry, not the Transport Ministry. The council said a Transport Ministry order concerning identity photos was not precise enough to apply to Singh's license.

The following day, the Transport Ministry changed its order, specifically saying that the Interior Ministry ban was applicable on driver's licenses.

The case went back to the Council of State, which ruled Monday that Singh must take his turban off for the photo.

The council said the requirement did not trample on religious freedoms but was necessary for "the interests of public security and protection of order."

Singh's lawyer, Patrice Spinosi, has said they could take the case to other tribunals, such as the European Court of Human Rights.

The small, quiet Sikh community in France began making its voice heard after France banned religious signs in public schools in 2004, which forced Sikh students to remove turbans or be expelled.

Source: AP via Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060306/ap_on_re_eu/france_sikhs