The Jerusalem Post reported:

Netanyahu noted that the question for the Palestinian Authority running the West Bank, where he is seeking to promote the Palestinian economy as a cornerstone of a future peace deal, is “do they progress economically like Dubai, or do they go backwards like Gaza?”

Netanyahu also stated that Iran’s nuclear weapons program needs to be stopped in order for the victory of moderates and stated that Muslims will choose the 21rst century over the 9th century. Netanyahu said,”In the fight between the 21st century and the 9th century, I am confident they will choose the 21st century”.

“Prosperity and peace will win in the struggle and, in the end, Islamic radicalism will be defeated”, said Netanyahu. 

Egypt received a lot of US aid after the signing of the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. During the Cold war, after the death of Gamal Abdel Nassar, his successor Anwar Sadat, who served as Vice President for Nasser and who was well-known for the Egytian-Israel peace treaty, which got him assassinated by Islamic extremists, defected from the Soviet fold and came to the American fold. While Nasser was militantly anti-western, Sadat had a more moderate policy toward the west. Mubarak served as Vice President under Sadat and succeeded him. Though Egypt is considered to be a US ally, the US also pressued Egypt to implement more democratic reforms. That was especially true under US President George W. Bush who had disputes with Egypt. However, it’s less true with Barack Obama in office. Obama cuddles up with Arab dictators and seeks to radically change America into a Socialist nation. He gave a bow to the Saudi king Abdullah.

China view reported:

The United States and Egypt, two major players in Middle East issues who have drifted apart in recent years, pressed the reset button on their relationship in a Tuesday meeting between the two presidents.

Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, 81, who has ruled Egypt for 28 years, made his first visit in five years to the U.S. capital to meet with his counterpart Barack Obama, after tensions under former U.S. President George W. Bush..

In Egypt, insulting the President Mubarak results in at least 24 hour detention and at most a 3 year detention. The poet appealed the court decision because he didn’t have a lawyer during the investigation.

“The court’s ruling is illegitimate and very harsh. It is clear evidence of the regime’s position toward freedom of speech,” said Hamdi El Assiouty, who is a legal councilor for the Arab network for Human Rights. However, human rights activist managed to get an acquittal for the jailed poet. Like other Arab countries, Egypt is a dictatorship. Mubarak imposed the Emergency law, which helps him to suppress dissident.

Wikipedia

Image via

Early in July the Sledgehammer Brigade left for an intense month long rotation to the National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, CA. NTC is located in the Mohave Desert and has been structured to mimic areas of Iraq to prepare the deploying soldiers and units for what they have in store.

Not that this brigade, the most deployed unit in the entire military for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), with over 40 months of combat deployment time since 2003, really needed the training. They are experienced, tough and always ready to go when needed.

In the late winter of 2003 the Sledgehammer Brigade answered the call when the decision to invade Iraq was made. They were an instrumental part of the historic “Thunder Run” as they blew through southern Iraq and into the treacherous Baghdad to take on and eventually overthrow Saddam Hussein’s evil regime.  As part of the 3rd Infantry Division’s effort to take and hold Baghdad the Sledgehammer Brigade took Baghdad International Airport (BIAP), a key hub in moving supplies and other units safely into the theater of operations.

Image via Wikipedia

Then again in early 2005 the Sledgehammer Brigade was tasked with neutralizing central Iraq and assisting with making the elections possible. Though stretched thin over a large area they stood strong in the face of adversity and helped the country of Iraq elect its own leadership. Their efforts were essential in stabilizing the hostile theatre and eliminating terrorists from infiltrating towns in their area of operations.

Though originally scheduled to deploy again in June of 2007 the Sledgehammer Brigade was one of the first units the Department of Defense looked to when they announced the troop surge. Leaving four months early and spread out across Iraq while still being tasked with setting up an operational new Forward Operating Base (FOB), which later became known as FOB Hammer, named after the Brigade itself, the 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team (HBCT) took the task and executed it flawlessly. During this deployment the over seven strategically placed Combat Outposts (COP) that provided direct support within unstable towns in the area of operations. FOB Hammer became known as the last expedition in Iraq as it was once the only area that had never been occupied by American Forces. Their efforts worked so well that within four months of their deployment Al Sadr, a leader of a large extremist group in Iraq, called for a one year cease fire. This saved countless American lives across Iraq.

Now they will be returning to their home away from home, but this time to Southern Iraq. It has been rumored that they will cover most of everything south of Baghdad.

While many members of the media are claiming that this deployment is too soon for a unit so heavily relied on, many soldiers within 3rd Brigade are looking forward to it because this time they will be in established areas and there for supporting the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police Forces. And for Sledgehammer soldiers, the roughest, toughest in the Army, that sounds like a vacation.

In Iran’s regime, it’s not only Ahmadinejad who wants Israel to be wiped off the map. The Iranian regime seeks Israel’s destruction since the 1979 Iranian revolution.

Iran’s Presidential elections only allows Shia males who are over 18 and who have the same views as the regime to run in presidential elections. The over 18 part may be reasonable. The Shia male part and having to have the same views as the regime is the outrageous part. Iran’s regime only allows candidates approved by the regime to run. The Iranian regime isn’t allowing candidates who support peace with Israel to run. Iran’s Vice President Mashaei even got into big trouble for giving cheap lip service to the idea that Iran is friends of the Israeli people. He said it in order to not make Iran seem like a threat when it is. If Mashaei got into so much trouble for making that statement by a regime that only allows candidates approved by them to run, what would make the Iranian regime allow a Presidential candidate who supports peace with Israel to run? While Mashaei was in trouble, Ali Khamenei said,”Who are Israelis? They are responsible for usurping houses, territory, farmlands and business. They are combatants at the disposal of Zionist operatives. A Muslim nation cannot remain indifferent vis-à-vis such people who are stooges at the service of the arch-foes of the Muslim world.”

Even Mashaei himself called for the destruction of Israel.

Eliminating Israel is a Fundamental part of the regime.

Iran’s 2009 elections resulted in Mir Hossein Mousavi and Ahmadinejad both claiming victory. Mousavi gets the praise as a reformist. My townhall blog Iran Monitor has documented what a sham reformist Mousavi is and showed that he is an accomplice for the Iranian regime’s bloodshed. Many people claim that Mousavi’s victory will result in less calls to wipe Israel off the map. They believe that his victory is better for Israel. The truth is that it isn’t. Mousavi was an accomplice in the Iranian regime’s creation of Hezbollah. Hezbollah is opposed to Israel’s right to exist. In fact, Hezbollah made its goal of destroying Israel and its opposition to any peace proposal with Israel clear in its 1985 program:

Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated.

We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine. Therefore we oppose and reject the Camp David Agreements, the proposals of King Fahd, the Fez and Reagan plan, Brezhnev’s and the French-Egyptian proposals, and all other programs that include the recognition (even the implied recognition) of the Zionist entity.

Newsmax reported that:

A former Iranian intelligence officer, Abdolghassem Mesbahi, tells Newsmax that he used to work for Mousavi when Mousavi headed the regime’s intelligence services as Iran’s prime minister.

Today’s reformer was yesterday’s terrorist, he says.

“Mir Hossein Mousavi was one of the founders of Hezbollah. Ayatollah Khomeini put him on the Hezollah leadership council when the group was created in 1982-1983. “

In an interview with Payane Enghelab magazine in 1981, Mousavi called for the creation of an Iranian-controlled Lebanese militia to spearhead a military confrontation with Israel.

“We are ready to participate with an armed force to fight Israel,” he said. “We have repeatedly announced that we are ready to have an actual, real and military presence in Southern Lebanon and on the borders of the occupied Palestinian lands,” a euphemism for Israel.

Mousavi was an accomplice in Iran’s material support for Hezbollah. Considering his call for the creation of an Iranian-controlled Lebanese terror group to fight Israel and his role in the creation of Hezbollah, does that sound like someone who is better for Israel? No. The group that he helped to create is responsible for the killing of innocent Israeli men, women and children and for the killing of the most Americans before Al Qaeda. Hezbollah started a war with Israel in 2006 by kidnapping IDF [Israel Defense Forces] soldiers and then launched rocket attacks on Israeli men, women and children. Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the very group that Mousavi helped to create, said,”If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide”. Unlike other anti-Israel propagandists, Nasrallah makes no distinction between Jews on one hand and Israel, zionists, zionism and Israeli on the other hand. Nasrallah said,”If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli”.

The Shia Lebanese scholar Amaal Saad Ghorayeb even confirms that Hezbollah is an anti-Semitic movement. This is just some evidence that Mousavi isn’t that much better than Ahmadinejad. In my townhall blog Iran Monitor, I offer pleny of evidence that Mousavi isn’t really better than Ahmadinejad and that Ahmadinejad getting kicked out of office isn’t going to produce that much change in Iran’s foreign and domestic policy.

Iran’s popular pro-democracy movement does favor peace with Israel and verbally attacks the Mullahs’ policy toward Israel. That movement isn’t part of the regime and constantly suffers oppression from that regime. Mousavi is not part of that movement.

Mousavi even vowed to continue Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Iran is developing nuclear weapons to be used for the global jihad. Iran is developing nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the map. Rafsanjani, the so-called moderate, said:

If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists’ strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.

Khamenei threatened to “vaporize the Zionist entity” with a nuclear bomb. Iran’s nuclear program also gives Hezbollah and Hamas access to nuclear weapons to be used against Israel. Yet Mousavi, who called for the creation of an Iranian-controlled militia to fight Israel and who helped to create Hezbollah, vows to continue Iran’s nuclear program. Boy, that sounds better for Israel. Mousavi’s victory won’t be better for the west either. It’ll just excite the appeasement crowd and get them to be even louder in having dangerous Chamberlain-like appeasement policies toward Iran. Iran’s Presidential elections are just a selection of different guys who hold the same views as the regime. The President doesn’t even have the most power in Iran. He has the second-most power to the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The appeasement crowd made the argument that Iran is not a threat to Israel because Ahmadinejad doesn’t have as much control as Khamenei. But Khamenei also called for Israel’s destruction. He even likes Ahmadinejad and rigged the Presidential election for him in 2005. Iran’s Presidential elections are just a selection of guys who hold the same view as the regime. That same view includes the view on Israel. If the Supreme leader likes the candidate, there is still a possibility for him to rig the election for that candidate.

Iran’s 2009 election won’t produce any sort of peace between Iran and Israel. Iran and Israel would still remain in a state of war with each other. Iran would still support terrorism on Israel, continue enrichment for nuclear weapons and would continue to call for Israel’s destruction. Only having regime-approved candidates run in elections for President, which doesn’t even have as much power as the Supreme Leader, is not going to help Israel in any way. That would not result in having Iran recognize Israel’s right to exist. It would not result in Iran stopping its support for terrorism and its end to uranium enrichment for nuclear weapons to be used in the global jihad. It would just result in Iran continuing those policies including its rejectionist stance vis-a-vis Israel.

Even before work, the Cabinet under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu was attacked by sharp critique for the record amount of ministers and their vices – a total of 30 people. According to the opponents of the new prime minister, a “blown-up” government is an unaffordable luxury for the country that is suffering (as well as the rest of the world) from the consequences of the economic crisis. Above all, that circumstance can make the work of the parliament more difficult: it turns out that out of its 120 members, only one quarter will sit in the government.

So, the new leader of the opposition, and former minister of foreign affairs Tzipi Livni has already accused Netanyahu of betrayal of his own economic principles by creating a government of an “immense” size, by introducing minister posts “on no matters” and vice-ministers “for questions about nothing”. Israeli analysts have admitted that partially Livni is right: the relatively big (by local standards) government can lose its mobility and speed of taking decisions on important questions, which under the circumstances of the crisis might be vital.

Sceptics also point out that the new government is hard to call “balanced”: with the wide representation of the right-winged block, was joined (on the rights of the minority) by the left-winged party “Avoda”, whose leader Ehud Barak has many serious disagreements with the right-winged and religious parties. This fact might cause destabilization in the Cabinet in case its members will start discussing problems that have a principal meaning for the right as well as the left.

One of such pitfalls is the building of Jewish settlements on the west bank of Jordan River – in Iudea and Samaria, territories that are occupied by mostly Arabs. Avoda isn’t just against any future building in the area, but is also calling for the destruction of current settlements, as they are an obstacle to peace with the Arabs.  At the same time the right-winged and religious parties are convinced that these lands have become Arab by mistake, and their gradual colonization by Jewish settlers would therefore bring them back as an Israeli territory. Because of that, as they think, stopping the constructions isn’t right, as it would be a betrayal of the national interests of the country. How Benjamin Netanyahu will reconcile the 2 sides, and if he will succeed in it at all will most likely be known in the near future.

So far he has offered to cooperate with the Palestinians in 3 directions: economically, politically, and culturally, According to him, it can bring back mutual trust to the bilateral relations. And the new prime minister also stated about his confidence in that the dynamical economic development of Arabic countries would help decrease the level of radicalism among the local people. But the Palestinian theme will inevitably somewhat impair Netanyahu’s relations with his partners on the international arena. EU and the U.S. has stated many times that they will remain adherents of the regulating formula “2 countries for 2 nationalities”. But the new prime minister tries to avoid that term in public appearances, that was impossible not to notice for the West. In any case, he will have to explain (mainly to Washington) what his plan in the Arabic question is, and then to agitate for it. Observers have noticed that Barack Obama, in comparison to George Bush, isn’t going to listen to only Israeli arguments, but is also ready to see the opinion of Arab and Muslim countries. This will obviously create the determination of the complexity of Netanyahu’s government’s foreign policies.

Image via Wikipedia

Another problem that the new Israeli prime minister and his government will have to solve is Iran and its nuclear program. Netanyahu has stated that he will not allow Tehran to get nuclear weapons. But under the conditions, where even the U.S. is ready for a dialogue with the Islamic Republic, Jerusalem will have problems in  lobbying harsher sanctions, not talking about an armed operation against Iran. Because of that, the Israeli media has already started to estimate the possibility of a  strike on Iranian nuclear sites alone, without the participation of Americans. So far, the conclusion is: possible, but hard.

The Hamas movement (that the new prime minister has promised the worst sanctions while he still was in opposition) is still in control of Gaza. Now, in the seat of the head of government, Netanyahu must decide: should he bring to life his promises, risking the lives of soldiers and officers, or not to rouse a sleeping bear. Taking into account all other problems he has to face, he will most likely come up with a third variant.

Another nuisance is waiting the new government from the north-western direction: the dialogue with Syria about the regulation of the conflict about Golan Heights, started during the Ehud Olmert’s reign, will most likely be stopped. The positions of the old and new prime ministers in this question are cardinally different: if Olmert was ready for concessions to Damascus to bring peace, then Netanyahu believes that Golan is a territory of Israel, and period.

Basically everything that has to do with foreign policies has to be handled with extra care by the new prime minister. It has to be done because Avigdor Lieberman, the minister of foreign affairs, is a person whose diplomatic talents are mildly said, questionable.  For example, Egypt will never forget his call to bomb “to hell” the Aswan Dam. And his initiatives for the forced resettlement of Arabs from Israel to other countries has outraged the whole Arab world diaspora. For Israelis such statements could be fine, but international partners might be insulted by such words. Because of that, part of the contacts with the Arab world Netanyahu will have to carry out by himself.

Still, no matter the current and coming problems, the new Israeli prime minister, as he himself said “without delays”, is ready to start his work. We only have to wish him good luck – the economic crisis, Iran, Syria, and Hamas will definitely not let Bibi to relax.

While praising Islam as a rich religion he also told lawmakers that radical Islam and the Iranian regime in Tehran are major threats to regional security. But he insists that he wants peace with the Muslim world.

His speech Tuesday was undoubtedly aimed at easing international concerns that he will end peace efforts. During Netanyahu’s first term as Israeli prime minister in the 1990’s, the peace process, going strong after the signing of the Oslo Accords and the final establishment of peace with Jordan, nearly collapsed due to his hawkish sentiments.  He had set in motion plans to expand Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, a move which many saw as Israel going back on its part of the deal it made with the Palestinians at the White House in 1994.

Many remained skeptical of Netanyahu following his speech. After his recent election as prime minister he immediately criticized the Israeli government for seeking peace with the Palestinians. And never during his recent speech to parliament did he flat-out say that he supports the creation of an independent Palestinian state and he remained vague on exactly how he intends to seek full peace with the Arabs. Netanyahu was fervently opposed to the creation of Palestinian state during his first term in office and was nearly as opposed to any peace between Israel and the Palestinians as Hamas. His return to the office of prime minister can have disastrous consequences for the peace process and can add fuel to Hamas’ repeated goal of the ultimate destruction of Israel.

In case Netanyahu hasn’t noticed, nearly all Arab and Muslim countries with no diplomatic ties with Israel have stated repeatedly that they do not intend to establish diplomatic ties with Israel until an independent Palestinian state has been created. If Netanyahu really wants to show that he’s committed to peace he will have completely repent his hawkish ways and accept the fact that there will never be “full peace” between Israel and Arab and Muslim worlds as long as he continues turn his nose up at the Palestinians. The sooner he can accept this the sooner there will be peace. Having a friendly Palestinian state will create yet another ally for Israel against Hamas and quite possibly against Iran. But this can only occur when Netanyahu quits being stubborn and tries to reach out to the Palestinian people.

The international court issued its arrest warrant on March 4, accusing al-Bashir of orchestrating atrocities against civilians in Darfur, where his Arab-led government has been battling ethnic African rebels since 2003. Up to 300,000 people have been killed, and 2.7 million have been driven from their homes.

Al-Bashir has denied the charges and has said he will not cooperate with court. He has struck a defiant tone, and his trip to Qatar at the end of the month is meant to show he cannot be touched. In a sense, his visit to Qatar will be a huge slap in the face to the international community. He will certainly have help, though. His presence at the Arab League summit will also be another fine example of just how little regard the 22-member Arab League holds for the rest of world.

Created in 1945 to promote unity and collective prosperity within the Arab world, so they claimed, the Arab League began showing its true colors three years later in 1948, following the creation of Israel, which put a civilized, western-leaning democracy dead-smack in the middle of the Arab world. The presence of a civilized, modern democracy that extended basic human rights to its citizens could not be tolerated in a region run by heavy-handed dictators and monarchs who wanted to keep their citizens in the Dark Ages. That Israel was a Jewish state made its existence even more intolerable. Therefore, five Arab countries, three of them member-states of the Arab League, immediately attacked Israel with the absolute intention of destroying the barely 12-hour-old state and the Arab League did nothing to condemn the vicious act. Strangely, when Israel not only repelled the aggressors but seized more land, that’s when the Arab League began making complaints.

In the years that followed, Israel’s existence, and destruction, has always been one of main topics at Arab League summits. This was proven even more when, in 1979, Egypt established peace and diplomatic ties with Israel. For its crime, Egypt was immediately expelled from the League and was not re-admitted until 1985. Jordan, which established diplomatic ties with Israel in 1994, nearly suffered a similar fate.

The Arab League has also repeatedly shown its disdain for all things un-Arab in its repeated refusal to recognize Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations. The League has remained silent while both factions have carried acts of terrorism and aggression towards Israel yet it is always quick to verbally reprimand Israel for attacking Hamas and Hezbollah strongholds and assassinating top leaders.

While the Arab League insists that it only promotes unity among Arab countries it has proven time and time again that its main focus is keep all forms of western influence out of the Middle East, even it means protecting Arab member-states from being held accountable for the some of the most vicious inhuman acts. The Arab League’s protection of el-Bashir should not surprise anyone.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict reached new heights yesterday as Israeli ground forces with air support and artillery entered the Gaza strip following a series of  missiles launched into Israel by the militant Palestinian faction, Hamas.

The offensive is clouded in controversy as many civilians are killed including women and children. Also the alleged use of phosphorous and cluster bombs contradict International Law and have incited UN investigations into the humanitarian state of the Gaza Strip.

Why?

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an ongoing dispute between the state of Israel and the Palestinians. The hostility comes from the conflicting Arab and Jewish aspirations for the region. In 1947 the UN approved the move to split the region into two states; one Jewish, one Arab. However, the Palestinian Arab leaders who were also supported by the Arab League rejected the split and civil war broke out, resulting in the Israelis quickly gaining the upper hand and thus, on May 14 1948 declared its independence. However many Arab league countries refused to accept Israel’s sovereignty, notably Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, many of whom have stayed hostile to Israel to this very day. This was the start of a long and bloody conflict abundant in humanitarian and social issues that have been raised especially those due to the high level of civilian casualties sustained. 

Core issues

Jerusalem is hugely important to both the Israelis and the Palestinians; it is the epicentre of the Jewish-Arabian culture clash- a vast amount of tension and conflict culminates around who should have possession of this city. This is largely due to religion; Judaism, the major Jewish religion, mentions Jerusalem is in its texts and is seen as an important religious and historical setting, especially important to the ’Holy Land’.  However, Jerusalem is also mentioned in Islamic texts and consequently is seen as an important city for the Arabs, who are predominantly follow Islam. At the moment the city is divided, and both Israel and Palestine claim Jerusalem as the area for their intended seat of government.
Wealth is another important issue, Palestine is relatively poor, with its main export being primary goods, such as citrus. Conversely, Israel has strong economic ties with the west, and its main exports are computer software, military equipment and chemicals: all far more profitable exports.

Humanitarian situation

The humanitarian situation in Gaza is one that is very politically sensitive, and has affected the hearts and minds of people not only in the middle east, but also in the west where much of it contradicts international law and the UN, and in particular America are politically very involved. Of course, journalists are banned within the Gaza strip, but the BBC managed to speak to a palestinian civilian through an inside reporter: when questioned about his opinion on the attack 

“It is slaughter. The Israelis, they condemn Hamas for attacking their civilians, yet they themselves have been doing the same thing here but with more terrible and destructive weapons! How can this be just?  It does not matter whether the Israelis say they are only after Hamas Militants, they suspect everyone and anyone, and if their guns and bombs do not kill us, then we shall surely starve instead!  They have no right to be here, this is and was and shall forever be Palestinian land!” 

“this is no war- it is genocide. My family were not armed militants. They had never harmed an Israeli in their life, yet now they are dead.”

The critical humanitarian situation in Gaza has invoked Humanitarian groups to survey the situation; the main element of concern being the killing of civilians in the densely populated region. However, this brings about the question of what constitutes a civilian? According to International Law what constitutes a civilian is based simply upon distinction between “combatants” and “non-combatants”. Israel has stated that it is operating fully within Humanitarian law, yet the intense bombing of the Gaza strip (that is also claimed to have included the use of the banned chemical – ‘White’ Phosphorous) has caused Human rights groups to express their fear that Israel is stretching the boundaries.
The question over who is a civilian was first brought into International focus with the highly publicised bombing of police stations across Gaza, in particular the strike that killed 40 trainees who were on parade. Israeli intelligence say that the police force often link up with rocket squads, however, no details have been given about the meeting sites, or the targeted individuals. Human rights groups argue that the whole operation is legally flawed, because even if some police members did double as Hamas fighters, according to International law they can only legally be attacked when participating in military activities.

“You question US over what constitutes a civilian? I will tell you what constitutes a civilian: a civilian is an innocent Israeli dying from a Hamas or Hezbollah missile attack. We are NOT the aggressors. Think. You would do the same.”

“It is all very well for you to judge us, sitting in your comfy Western chairs in your spacious Western houses, without the daily threat of death and destruction, and the imminent news that yet more of our people have been murdered by the Arabs. We fight so that there may be peace.”

International Law

Many of the soldiers interviewed expressed a negative attitude towards international law, this poses the question as to how far can we trust and adhere to international law, and can it ever apply on a truly International basis. An argument against international law is that the worlds countries and cultures are so strikingly different that there can never be a completely global law, because whilst it may adhere to one countries politically and socially acceptable ’guidelines’ it is inevitable that it will be in conflict with another countries.

Should the United Nations ‘intrude’, and take sides?

As it is the UN who is responsible for much of the framework of International law, it would be their responsibility to intervene in Israel, if they find sufficient evidence to suggest that International law has been broken. However, some people are critical of the aims of the UN, and America in particular. America is an integrated part of the United Nations, and the recognition of the state of Israel was largely down to America and the west. America was keen to have an ally in the middle east, as it had no sphere of influence in that area, and saw Israel as a prime opportunity to expand its influence, thus being able to exploit the resources and trade available form the middle east. Israel could also effectively act as a Americas spy, giving information on the Arab countries that America and the west had limited intelligence on. Therefore, it is unlikely that America would intervene on the subject of international law against Israel, because of its close ties. Consequently, this leaves many of the Arab countries feeling ever more threatened by Israel, who to some of them appear to be Americas ‘watchdog’.

For now though, missiles are still being fired into Israel, Israeli bombs are still dropping in Gaza, and a solution to the conflict in which both sides unconditionally believe they are right has no foreseeable end.

The picture was completed when complicating Hamas and other radical Palestinian groups announced that they rejected the plan proposed by Egypt and France to achieve a ceasefire, arguing that “has no valid basis since it threatens the resistance and the Palestinian cause .

“The Franco-Egyptian initiative does not contribute to finding a solution since it allows the enemy to continue its aggression,” said Khaled Abdel Majid, spokesman for the Palestinian groups in Damascus (Syria).

Tension and fear in the north

To this is added that this Thursday morning the feeling was that everything could be even more complicated, to open a second front in Israel’s northern border with Lebanon.

Earlier, three Katyusha rockets landed in the Galilee region of Israel, fired from Lebanon.

One direct hit on a nursing home in the town of Naharia, except the people as they were almost all in the dining room.

Two people suffered minor shrapnel wounds and 15 were treated for stress and crisis nerves.

The big question was whether it was a provocative and pro-Iranian Shiite militia Hezbollah, Israel decided to open another front battala or an isolated case.

Israel responded with artillery fire, according to latest reports, left no victims.

The Lebanese Shiite movement denied responsibility, and Israel later denied.

Despite this, the incident of the truck loaded with humanitarian aid was the biggest concern raised when it was passing through the Eretz border terminal (between Gaza and Egypt) and during the hours allowed by the Israeli humanitarian corridor, which was impacted by the firing of a tank.

UN sources claim that a missile was fired from an Israeli tank that hit the truck, killing the Palestinian driver and wounding two others.

The Israeli army investigated the issue for hours, then this reporter by saying that “Israel fully supports the work of humanitarian organizations.”

But the paramedics of the Red Star of David that evacuated the two wounded Palestinians at an Israeli hospital, said that as soldiers in the field, was a Hamas sniper who opened fire.

“We can not continue to operate in this way. We call for security guarantees to carry out our operations, to respect humanitarian law and the Geneva Convention and allow humanitarian actors to operate,” said French Claret, one of Spokespersons for the UNRWA.

This is the third Israeli attack on the UNRWA after Israel fired at schools run by the UN killing at least 40 civilians, arguing that Hamas militiamen then shot his troops.

Hours of ‘humanitarian corridor’ (between 1 and 4 pm) have served to more clearly see that the tragedy on Thursday found 35 dead bodies in the rubble, increasing the number of dead Palestinians and 763 injured, over 3,100 injured.

On the ground, more than 20 people, including women and children, were killed in Jabaliya and Beit Lahya (north of the Strip), where there were violent clashes between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian militants.

His art always make a not-so-subtle social statement. His rats, perhaps, representing the “rat race” of modern society.

To any graffiti artist, an unadorned wall takes on the temptation of an artist’s easel.

When Israel built the controversial 436 mile long security barrier to separate itself from the Palestinian Authority controlled areas, they might as well have sent out an invitation to Banksy at the same time!

He is quoted by The Mail Online as saying: “The segregation wall is a disgrace…The possibility I find exciting is that you could turn the world’s most invasive and degrading structure into the world’s longest gallery of free speech and bad art.” A UK television station, Channel 4, ran a news item quoting Banksy’s attitude to the wall: “It turns Palestine into the world’s largest open prison,” and described the wall as “the ultimate Graffiti Artists’ holiday destination.” 

So with this huge canvas available, Banksy took his “holiday” in 2005.

Whilst probably not the safest place to carry out such a bold undertaking; with his prepared stencils, he probably got away with it because of the speed in which he was able to do it.

On his website Banksy recalled one incident when he was approached by some soldiers:

“Soldier: ‘What the f*** are you doing?’
Banksy: ‘You’ll have to wait ‘til it’s finished’
Soldier (to colleagues): ‘Safetys off…’”

This is only one part of the approximately 6 mile long stretch of the walled section of the security barrier. The remaining is predominantly fencing and creates a border between the Palestinian Authority controlled areas and Israel, as one of the starting points in a workable two-state solution.

What drove him to take the risk of either Palestinian police or Israeli soldiers potentially opening fire?

Rachel Campbell Johnson, art critic for The Times Online, offers the following explanation, “[The wall is] like a red rag to a bull. You’re going to want to cover it in work. Also it may be a publicity stunt in a way. But to have a politically repressive situation to react against is enormously important for many artists. It gives them something to react against; something to give meaning and importance to their work.”

Is it simply a publicity stunt? If so, who is the publicity for? For himself? For the existence of the wall, or the people on both sides cut off by the wall?

There will always be issues to debate. Of the wall itself, Israel claims it is a security measure. The Palestinian Authority claims that it is an attempt to grab land.

However he also recounts that an old man came up to him and told him that he was making the wall look beautiful. Banksy thanked him. The old man replied, “We don’t want it to be beautiful. We hate that wall. Go away.”

The publicity was, however, still appreciated. In 2007, Banksy and several other graffiti artists were invited to produce works in Bethlehem as part of an exhibition.

Through his PR spokeswoman Banksy said that he hoped the art would “attract tourists to Bethlehem.”

Banksy still remains anonymous. The words attributed to him were originally sourced from his website or spokesperson.

All images are from Flickr.

This is the second in the series of articles about the works of Banksy. The others are: 

Urban Graffiti as Art: Banksy
Banksy Storms New Orleans: Banksy vs the Grey Ghost
Urban Graffiti Artist Banksy Opens a Pet Shop
Banksy Gunrat Will Double Value of British Pub
Banksy: How to Make Millions with Spraycan and Stencil
Banksy Punked Paris Hilton: Cunning Stunts
Two New Banksy Graffiti Artworks Appear in London