Today on EA (28 December 2009)

Iran: The situation remains tense today. As we follow events and consider long-term significance,  we have an interim assessment: has Iran reached a point of no return? This follows Scott Lucas' five-minute, five-point reaction, given last night to an Italian journalist.

Demonstrations continued well into the night: we've posted the most recent clips we've received. And we now have the video of President Obama's statement this evening on Iran.

Josh Shahryar, who also live-blogged Ashura, concludes that, for the first time in 200 days, Iranians decided "enough was enough". His overall assessment, "Iranians are not punchbags", offers provocative thoughts on non-violence and self-defence.

As always, all the news as we hear it, can be found in our live weblog.

Palestine: EA's Ali Yenidunya reviews Mahmoud Abbas' interview last week with the Wall Street Journal, where he promised "No Third Intifada".

Israel/Palestine: EA's Ali Yenidunya analyses the anniversary of the Gaza War and asks "Who Won" after operation Cast Lead?

Britain/Israel: The controversy over the arrest warrant for former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni continues: the head of Britain's Muslim Council has written to the British Government criticising Foreign Secretary Miliband's statement on the need to change British law to prevent any further warrants.

The Anniversary of the Gaza War: Who "Won" after Operation Cast Lead?

Israeli Defense Forces, commanded by the government of Ehud Olmert, started Operation Cast Lead on 27 December 2008. The operation took the lives of 1,400 Palestinians, including many civilians, and of 13 Israelis.

The officially-stated aim was to halt rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip. “For the first time in years, the children of southern Israel can grow up without the constant fear of an incoming rocket and running to the nearest bomb shelter," Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev asserted on Sunday. So, the mission was “accomplished“ since there was no rockets coming over children in playgrounds.

Was it?

In a televised speech, the Hamas Prime Minister in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh said, "Gaza was victorious. Yes, Gaza was victorious with its steadfastness, its firmness and strength of faith.”

Was it?

On Sunday, about 3,000 people milled around a square in the northern Gaza town of Jebaliya,according to The Jerusalem Post. "I wish they had commemorated the war by opening a factory. That would have been better than this," said Gaza resident Rami Mohammed, 30.

This line set out the reaction of Gazans that Hamas has contributed heavily to their impoverishment, through its uncompromising position both against the Palestinian Authority and against Israel. In that sense, neither Hamas nor Gaza has been victorious.

On the other hand, the new government of Israel has showed no progress in its supposed aim of ameliorating the deteriorating political, social, and economic situation in Gaza. Instead of searching for dialogue to contribute to the $4.5 billion international reconstruction project, Israel completely closed the border. Arguably, leaving people in a cage without sufficient medicine and food and with inadequate and unsanitary water supplies; cutting interaction with the outside world, is a worse crime than directly bombing civilians during Operation Cast Lead. At the end of the day, it is Israel under heavy criticism from around the world. Is that victory?

On Sunday, United Nations Secretary General Ban ki-Moon went beyond notions of victory. He said that was "deeply concerned that neither the issues that led to this conflict nor its worrying aftermath are being addressed", and he added that Gazans were being denied "basic human rights". Ban urged Israel to end its "unacceptable and counterproductive blockade".

Maybe a most significant reaction, however, is that of Khadija Omari, 45, whose brother Said Jaber, 32, was killed in the conflict:

The war made us aware of how much the Jews hate us. But we also hate the Jews even more. Now the children beg us to fight them, that's what the war taught us.

Britain-Israel: Muslim Council Challenges Government in "Livni Arrest Warrant" Case

The Muslim Council of Britain's Secretary-General Muhammad Abdul Bari has written to Foreign Minister David Miliband, criticising his statement on the need to change British law to prevent another arrest warrant being issued - thereby preventing an Israeli official from visiting Britain.

Bari stated that Miliband's proposal, prompted by the recent arrest warrant for Israel's former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, would not only undermines judicial independence, but be an unjustified departure from the centuries-old legal traditions of Britain. It would damage respect for international law; all of which would, in the end, undermining Britain's reputation at home and abroad:

Israel-Palestine: Hamas “Provided Evidence” for Arrest Warrant for Livni
Israel and Britain: The Reaction to the Livni Arrest Warrant

Dear Mr Miliband,

I am writing to express the deep disappointment and grave concern of the Muslim Council of Britain (the MCB) at your views with regard to the warrant which a magistrate had lawfully issued for the arrest of the former Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, for suspected war crimes. As is well known the arrest did not take place and the warrant was withdrawn.

It appears that following expression of strong disapproval and anger by the Israeli government and representations by the Jewish Leadership Council you have shown willingness to review and remove the powers of magistrates in the UK to issue warrants of arrest against alleged Israeli war criminals.

As you must surely know the cornerstone of our much cherished legal system is respect for the rule of law. The separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary flow from it. It seems to us that you are allowing political exigency to undermine and erode fundamental legal traditions and conventions which are centuries old and have served our society well.

Your motivation to review and reconsider the current process for bringing war criminals to justice if found within our jurisdiction is political as well as manifestly partisan. Law in our legal system is the same for all – friend or foe. Your proposed step will treat “political friends” differently and indeed more favourably than those who may face same allegations but for whom a different process will apply. This cannot be right and will give rise to well founded perception of double standards in law enforcement.

We note that in your commitment to review and revise the process for issue of warrants by courts you have taken account of and been persuaded by the legal opinion of David Pannick QC. It is quite interesting that you have not chosen to seek views of others before making the commitment. Whilst we respect the capacity and standing of David Pannick QC to give legal advice, we do not accept that he is the only person in the legal fraternity to have expertise on matters of this kind. The matter is inherently very sensitive and it is contaminated by a perception of bias in choosing to rely solely on him. Such a major and far-reaching change in legal policy and process should not, we contend, be undertaken without due public consultation. We regret to have to say that the process that the government appears to have chosen to follow on this issue is fundamentally flawed.

It is our considered view that the change contemplated by you is such that it not only undermines judicial independence but also makes a wholly unjustified departure from the centuries old legal traditions of our country. The office of Magistracy is centuries old and people who hold such office are chosen irrespective of their political or other background and solely on the basis that they have the ability to apply the law without fear or favour. An appraisal of how their power to enforce international law has been exercised when called upon to do so will demonstrate that they have done so with competence and fairness.

Your proposed change sends out a clear signal that the government wants the courts to be subservient to political considerations. After all, the Attorney General is a political appointee and holds office, strictly speaking, at the pleasure of the Prime Minister.

The change that you propose also has the serious potential of severely reducing respect for international law and the treaties that give international jurisdiction for the pursuit of alleged war criminals. Commission of war crimes is an international crime as is engagement in torture. It is the clearly expressed wish of the international community as articulated in international law that people suspected of such crimes should be tried wherever they are found. We believe that the change that you propose may exempt some accused from prosecution and this will have a gravely adverse impact on the reputation of our country both at home as well as abroad.

You appear to be committing the government to the path of selective compliance with the enforcement of international law. This is surely not in the best interests of our country as it will add a further dimension to the double standards that our government is seen to have in relation to the politics of the Middle East.

Whilst we respect your quest to advance the prospects for peace in the Middle East, justice and fairness is not served by being or by being seen to be partisan and compliant to demands made by one major player in the conflict.

May we respectfully remind you that in your address at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies in May this year on ‘Building coalitions, winning consent’, you said, ‘To broaden the coalition and win consent, we need to understand the Muslim world better, or we will risk undermining the force of our own argument... we need to hold fast to our own values and support those who seek to apply them, or we will be guilty of hypocrisy...'.

It is hard to imagine how we could escape the charge of hypocrisy from those all too eager to point out our vacillation on allowing the law to take its course in the case of those suspected of committing war crimes.

We suggest that to understand the Muslim world better is to be aware of the deeply held view that our approach to states in the region is unequal and that our commitment to the observance of international law is ambivalent. Any change to the current procedures on universal jurisdiction and the right of magistrates to issue a warrant will only reinforce this view, with detrimental consequences.

The Prevent programme and your own department’s involvement in it through the ‘Bringing Foreign Policy Back Home’ project is built on the foundations of respecting the rule of law and the pillars of a democratic society. In deliberating over the recent controversy and prevaricating on upholding the rule of law, we run the risk of strengthening the claims of those who reject our democratic processes and view our commitment to law, domestic and international, as utilitarian and malleable.

We urge you to consider the grave consequences of interfering with established legal procedures and jeopardising our reputation at home and abroad.

I am copying this letter to the Minister for Justice, the Right Honourable Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government as your expressed views on this matter impact on their areas responsibilities in the government.

Yours sincerely,

Muhammad Abdul Bari
Secretary General

Today on EA (27 December 2009)

Iran: On the holy day of Ashura, coinciding with the 7th day of mourning for Ayatollah Montazeri, thousands of protesters are on the streets of Tehran and other cities throughout Iran. Amidst clashes with security forces, five demonstrators have been killed.

Today's videos are already coming through and we are adding to them continuously, now starting a second set (and now set #3). There is also a link to a detailed map of Tehran to help follow events.

We have a video special on the attack on the Jamaran memorial and the Khatami speech yesterday (26 December).

EA's Scott Lucas has written an open letter to the columnist Charles Krauthammer, saying thanks for his "concern" but "Now Go Away": the people of Iran can manage without "false friends".

We have uncovered a top secret relationship between US President Obama and Ahmadinejad! (but please note we have at times been known to have a joke with our readers).

All the latest news can be read in our live weblog .

Israel: A few days after Israeli PM Netanyahu announced that he would break-up Kadima unless Tzipi Livni joined a national unity government, Haaretz's Nehemia Shtrasler has responded by accusing him of being being "corrupt".

Israel: Haaretz Columnist "Netanyahu is Corrupt"

Earlier this week Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he would break up the opposition party Kadima unless its leader Tzipi Livni joined a national unity government. Haaretz's Nehemia Shtrasler has responded by accusing Netanyahu of being "corrupt" due to his desire to expand "the largest, most inflated and wasteful government in the history of the state, a government with no functional logic, which has 30 ministers and nine deputy ministers".

Shtrasler also accused the Kadima members of Parliament reported to be leaviong the party of being a part of Netanyahu's "chair-ology". He criticised Israelis who "have not taken to the streets to demonstrate against the corruption."

The full article:

In another country, with a higher level of morality and less exhaustion and despair, the masses would already have taken to the streets to demonstrate against the corruption.

Admittedly, the public did not take to the streets to demonstrate when Benjamin Netanyahu set up the largest, most inflated and wasteful government in the history of the state, a government with no functional logic, which has 30 ministers and nine deputy ministers, most of whom have jobs fabricated out of nothing, grandiose and unnecessary bureaus and ridiculous perks. The public put up with that without a murmur. But now he wants to expand this monstrous government by buying another seven Knesset members who are interested only in a luxurious office, a chauffeur and other perks!

Netanyahu's job project has no connection to ideology. It is all a matter of chair-ology. There is no diplomatic plan on the horizon that requires a majority; there is no new vision that requires people to rally to the flag. Nor is Netanyahu about to sign any withdrawal plan.

Therefore, this is not a legitimate desertion; it is very different from a split on ideological grounds or leaving a party in order to support a new diplomatic program, like the split in Likud under Ariel Sharon, which occurred due to the disengagement plan.

So far, we are merely talking about proposals that have been made to various Knesset members - Arie Bibi, Otniel Schneller, Ronit Tirosh, Shai Hermesh and Yulia Shamalov Berkovich, who only two weeks ago told me that she considers politics "a serious profession that must be studied before one talks." Shamalov Berkovich has served in the Knesset for a mere half year. Is it serious that she should already be appointed a deputy minister?

The positions being offered to those who leave Kadima - for instance, in the Foreign Ministry (an additional minister) and the Public Security Ministry (a deputy minister) - are totally superfluous. They could just as well be appointed Minister of Nothing or Deputy Minister for Zilch. In other words, this is simply crude, blatant bribery that is much worse than the public corruption of which Abraham Hirchson, for example, was convicted.

Hirchson was sentenced to five years and five months in jail for stealing NIS 1.7 million from the National Workers Organization's coffers. That is a personal, localized crime that does not have much effect on the general public. But when the prime minister hands out bribes - every minister and deputy minister costs the taxpayer millions - that is a corruption of the democratic system, contempt for the rules of proper governance and scorn for the voters' choices.

The result will be an even greater distrust of and repugnance toward politicians. From there, the road is short to a loss of faith in the entire democratic process. And that is dangerous.

Attorney General Menachem Mazuz, who took energetic, resolute action against Hirchson when he was down and lacked political clout, is nowhere to be seen when it comes to the prime minister. Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman, who is responsible for the rule of law, has no opinion on the issue. Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar is also keeping mum. He is the one who in 2008 submitted a bill on Likud's behalf to limit the size of the cabinet to 18 ministers because he was so shocked by Ehud Olmert's oversize government, which contained 25 ministers. But that is nothing compared to Netanyahu. Yet there was a time when Netanyahu boasted of how he gave the public a government of 18 ministers in 1996.

Since then Netanyahu has aged, and for the worse. He understands that "the public is dumb, so the public will pay," as Shalom Hanoch's song says. That is why we now see a prime minister utterly different from the finance minister we saw six years ago and the prime minister of 13 years ago. Netanyahu, from the moment he was elected, has betrayed all his principles. He has smashed the tablets of the covenant that he himself wrote. In fact, he has no principles, except the principle of survival.

Netanyahu no longer has pretensions of improving the economy. He has no pretensions of cutting the budget or carrying out important reforms. He has raised the child allowances that he himself cut and included the budget for yeshivas and yeshiva students in the baseline national budget, something he fought against in the past.

He has given Histadrut labor federation chairman Ofer Eini veto power, even though he loathes the organization. Eini's veto will make it impossible for him to carry out important reforms at the Israel Electric Corporation, the Water Authority and the ports.

Every morning, Netanyahu checks to see which way the wind is blowing and then decides which direction to take.

That is why he decided to cancel the drought tax even though he knows the water economy is in a crisis. That is why he canceled value-added tax on fruit and vegetables - because he decided to heed "the public's feelings." That is why he is maneuvering incessantly over the Gilad Shalit deal, because he has not yet decided whether a majority of the public supports or opposes it.

One thing is clear: The public is exhausted and in despair, so it will not exact payment from him for his corrupt actions. Netanyahu understood that the journalists would write a bit and the public would complain a bit, but in the end, everyone would forget - and he would remain, with his hold on power bolstered. The prime minister knows we will not go out to the city square and shout with hoarse voices: "Corrupt politicians, we're fed up with you!"