On Nov. 4, the Israeli Navy intercepted the “Francop” cargo ship, which was laden with a massive amount of Iranian-supplied weapons, hidden among civilian cargo and bound for Hezbollah. The story received mixed attention in the Canadian media.

The Nov. 5 National Post gave the story front-page prominence, with the headline “Israelis Seize 500 Tonnes of Iranian-Supplied Weapons” and a photo showing crates loaded with rockets and mortar shells. The accompanying story, on an inside page, gave details about the “unprecedented” size and nature of the seized weapons, and the fact that the shipment was headed for Syria, which typically forwards Iranian rockets to Hezbollah in Lebanon – all in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions.

The Toronto Star carried a substantial Associated Press story headlined “Israelis seize huge arms shipment.” It highlighted a statement from Israeli military spokesperson Avital Leibovich: “All the cargo certificates are stamped at the ports of origin, and this one was stamped at an Iranian port,” which emphasized the Iranian connection.

However, the Globe and Mail, like the New York Times, just ran a brief news digest item.

This was not the only story involving Iranian-supplied weapons making news last week.

On Nov. 3, CTV.ca ran an AP report titled “Israel: Gaza rockets can reach metro Tel Aviv.” It noted that, according to the head of Israeli Military Intelligence, Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin, Hamas successfully test fired an Iranian rocket, capable of flying 60 kilometres, into the Mediterranean Sea. At that distance, it has the capacity to hit Tel Aviv, Israel’s most populous urban centre.

According to AP, “[a]lthough the attacks have decreased dramatically – from 3,300 rockets and mortars fired in 2008 to 250 so far this year – Israeli officials say weapons continue to reach militants through tunnels under Gaza’s border with Egypt.”

Yadlin reportedly told Israel’s foreign affairs and defence committee that Hamas has as many, if not more, rockets than it had before last winter’s war.

The expanding range of Hamas rockets, together with approximately 40,000 Iranian and Syrian-supplied rockets, many of them long-range, in the hands of Hezbollah, poses a major, and growing, security challenge to Israel.

Iran’s determination to keep funnelling rockets and other arms to terrorist organizations on Israel’s doorstep is coupled with its attempts to frustrate the international community’s efforts to rein in its nuclear program. It’s no wonder that Israeli officials are urging that more attention be paid to Iran’s intentions to destabilize the region and act on its stated aim to “wipe Israel off the map.”

* * *

On a more positive note: In “Fish out of Water” (Oct. 29), The Economist looked at recent efforts (many of them faulty) by governments across the globe to promote entrepreneurship. It noted that the pre-eminent success story has been Israel: “The country that has led the world in promoting entrepreneurship has also done the most to plug itself into global markets. The Israeli government’s venture-capital fund, which was founded in 1992 with $100m of public money, was designed to attract foreign venture capital and, just as importantly, expertise. The government let foreigners decide what to invest in, and then stumped up a hefty share of the money required. Foreign venture capital poured into the country, high-tech companies boomed, domestic venture capitalists learned from their foreign counterparts and the government felt able to sell off the fund after just five years.

“Last year Israel, a country of just over 7m people, attracted as much venture capital as France and Germany combined. Israel has more start-ups per head than any other country (a total of 3,850, or one for every 1,844 Israelis), and more companies listed on the NASDAQ exchange, a hub for fledgling technology firms, than China and India combined. It may not have the same comforting ring as ‘the Swedish model’ or ‘the polder model’, but when it comes to promoting entrepreneurship, ‘the Israeli model’ is the one to emulate.”

Israeli scientists have found a substance that can kill cancerous cells without harming healthy ones, paving the way for more effective cancer treatment. Researchers from Tel Aviv University and Sheba Medical Center isolated a component of a drug developed a decade ago to preserve nerve cells after a stroke. The drug has been tested on several types of cancer; the breast cancer findings were recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Breast Cancer Research.  Find out more in this Haaretz report.

MYTH:
“Amnesty’s water report fairly portrays Israel.

FACT:
Amnesty International released a report in October 2009 condemning Israel’s water-usage policy in the West Bank. Before the report’s release, the Israeli Water Authority offered to issue a report or presentation to Amnesty, but was refused. ³³⁴ Given the unwillingness to hear Israel’s side, as well as it’s now long history of anti-Israel animus, it was not surprising the report was an error-filled, one-sided critique that accused Israel of using a disproportionately large amount of the region’s water resources while leaving little for the Palestinians.

Over the years, Israelis have drastically decreased the amount of water they use while Palestinian consumption has increased. Before 1967, Israel’s water usage was approximately 500 cubic meters per person per year. Today, it is 70% less at 149 cubic meters per person per year. In that time, Palestinian water consumption has increased from 86 to 105 cubic meters per person per year.³³⁵ The report is laden with errors as well. For example, it claims Palestinian villages in the vicinity of Jerusalem, such as Beit Ula, are not connected to a water system. In fact, Beit Ula has been connected to the Palestinian water network of the Palestinian Water Authority since 1974.³³⁶

Palestinians accuse Israel of stealing their water, despite the fact that the majority of Israel’s water comes from within the pre-1967 armistice lines. Also forgotten is that Palestinian agriculture flourished after 1967 because Israelis introduced drip irrigation and other modern agricultural techniques. Prior to 1967, of the 430 Palestinian towns and villages in the West Bank, 50 had access to running water. By 1992, an influx of capital and infrastructure from Israel had increased the number to 260.³³⁷

Year after year, the Israeli Water Authority has delivered more water per year to the Palestinians than the amounts agreed upon in the Oslo Accords. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority has threatened the water security of both themselves and the Israelis by digging 250 illegal wells and refusing to purify sewage water in violation of the Oslo Accords, instead dumping sewage into West Bank streams, causing massive pollution and threatening the lives of everyone.³³⁸ Palestinian mismanagement has already destroyed the aquifer in Gaza, making the water undrinkable. The Palestinian Authority has received billions of dollars in international aid and large sums of money were earmarked for the Palestinians to build sewage treatment plants, but not a single facility has been constructed. This violates the commitment made in the Oslo Declaration of Principles for Cooperation on Water-Related Matters that states that water projects be environmentally sound. There are currently five sewage treatment plants located in the West Bank. Of these, the Palestinian Authority has only managed to keep one functioning. The Palestinian population in the West Bank exceeds 2 million. The one plant the Palestinian Authority has managed to keep functioning has the capacity to service 50,000 people – a huge disparity. In light of the Palestinian Authority’s inability to serve its own people’s water needs, one can understand Israel’s reluctance to share more precious water resources.³³⁹ Still, Israel has offered to supply Palestinians with desalinated water but, due to political posturing, Palestinian leaders have refused.³⁴⁰

The issue of water in the Middle East is a serious issue for both the Palestinians and Israelis – one not easily resolved, and was therefore reserved for negotiation among the other final-status issues. The Amnesty Report does little to explain the complexities of the problem, but rather opportunistically and unproductively shovels mud on Israel. It is perhaps no coincidence that the release of the report coincides with the start of a speaking tour on U.S. university campuses entitled “Israel’s Control of Water as a Tool of Apartheid and a Means of Ethnic Cleansing,” organized by the Palestinian Cultural Academic Boycott of Israel movement.³⁴¹

It is ironic that Amnesty would choose to focus on the issue of water, as it is an issue on which Palestinians and Israelis have demonstrated a tremendous amount of cooperation. In 2001, for example, Israel and the Palestinian Authority issued a joint statement declaring their shared intention to “keep the water infrastructure out of the cycle of violence.” When Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005, Israel left the Palestinians all of the water treatment utilities they had built for Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip.³⁴² As recently as 2007, Israeli and Palestinian municipalities released a joint memorandum declaring their shared interest in protecting water resources.

334 Ehud Zion Waldoks, “Water Authority Blasts Amnesty Report,” Jerusalem Post, (October 27,2009).

335 Ibid.

336″Snapshots: A Camera Blog,” Camera.org, (October 28, 2009).

337 Bard, Mitchell, Will Israel Survive?, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2007, p. 95.

338 Ehud Zion Waldoks, “Water Authority Blasts Amnesty Report,” Jerusalem Post, (October 27,2009).

339 Bard, Mitchell, Will Israel Survive?, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2007, p. 95.

340 “Response to Amnesty International’s Report on Israeli-Palestinian Water Issues,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (October 27, 2009).

341 Ehud Zion Waldoks, “Water Authority Blasts Amnesty Report,” Jerusalem Post, (October 27,2009).

342 “Israel Turns Over Gaza Water Processing Facility to Palestinians,” IMRA, (November 21, 2005).

MYTH:
“Le rapport d’Amnesty International sur l’eau fait un portrait juste d’Israël.”

FAIT:
En octobre 2009, Amnistie Internationale (AI) a publié un rapport condamnant la politique d’Israël relative à l’utilisation de l’eau en Cisjordanie. Avant la publication de ce rapport, l’Autorité israélienne de l’eau a proposé à AI de lui présenter son propre rapport, démarche que l’organisation a refusée³³⁴. À la lumière de ce refus d’entendre le point de vue d’Israël, et du sentiment anti-israélien qu’entretient cette organisation depuis longtemps, il n’est pas surprenant de constater que le rapport publié par AI soit rempli d’erreurs et de critiques partisanes, accusant Israël de faire un usage disproportionné des ressources en eau de la région et d’en laisser peu aux Palestiniens.

Il s’avère qu’au fil des ans, les Israéliens ont considérablement réduit leur consommation d’eau, alors que celle des Palestiniens s’est accrue. Avant 1967, la consommation d’eau annuelle en Israël s’élevait à environ 500 mètres cubes par personne. Aujourd’hui, elle s’établit à 149 mètres cubes, soit 70 % de moins. Pendant cette même période, la consommation d’eau annuelle des Palestiniens a augmenté de 86 à 105 mètres cubes par personne.³³⁵ Le rapport contient aussi de nombreuses erreurs. Il prétend par exemple que certains villages palestiniens situés aux alentours de Jérusalem, comme Beit Oula, n’ont pas accès à l’eau courante. En fait, Beit Oula est relié au réseau hydrologique de l’Autorité palestinienne de l’eau depuis 1974.³³⁶

Les Palestiniens accusent Israël de voler leur eau, et ce en dépit du fait que la majorité des ressources hydriques d’Israël proviennent du territoire délimité par les frontières d’avant l’armistice de 1967. Le rapport néglige aussi de mentionner que l’agriculture palestinienne a commencé à prospérer après 1967, notamment grâce à l’introduction par les Israéliens de l’irrigation au goutte-à-goutte et d’autres techniques agricoles modernes. Avant 1967, sur les 430 agglomérations et villages palestiniens situés en Cisjordanie, seulement 50 avaient accès à l’eau courante. En 1992, ce nombre avait augmenté à 260, grâce à l’injection de capitaux et à l’installation d’infrastructures par Israël.³³⁷

D’une année à l’autre, l’Autorité israélienne de l’eau a fourni aux Palestiniens des volumes annuels d’eau supérieurs à ceux prévus dans les Accords d’Oslo. Pendant ce temps, l’Autorité palestinienne a compromis la sécurité de l’approvisionnement en eau, tant pour sa population que pour celle d’Israël, en creusant illégalement 250 puits et en refusant d’épurer les eaux d’égout. En contravention avec les Accords d’Oslo, l’AP a évacué les eaux d’égout dans les cours d’eau de Cisjordanie, causant ainsi une pollution massive et mettant en danger la vie de tous les habitants de la région.³³⁸ La mauvaise gestion palestinienne a déjà détruit l’aquifère de Gaza, où l’eau n’est plus potable. L’Autorité palestinienne a reçu des milliards de dollars en aide internationale et des sommes considérables ont été affectées à des projets de construction d’usines de traitement des eaux par les Palestiniens. À ce jour, aucune usine n’a été construite. Cet état de fait contrevient aux engagements conclus dans la Déclaration de principes des Accords d’Oslo pour la coopération dans le domaine de l’eau, en vertu desquels les projets de gestion hydrique doivent respecter l’environnement. À l’heure actuelle, cinq usines de traitement des eaux sont installées en Cisjordanie. Or, l’Autorité palestinienne n’a réussi à maintenir en activité qu’une seule de ces usines. La population palestinienne de Cisjordanie dépasse les deux millions d’habitants. La seule usine que l’Autorité palestinienne soit en mesure de faire fonctionner a une capacité de service de 50 000 utilisateurs – l’écart est colossal. Compte tenu de l’incapacité de l’Autorité palestinienne de combler les besoins en eau de sa propre population, on peut comprendre la réticence d’Israël à partager davantage de ses précieuses ressources hydriques.³³⁹ Israël a néanmoins offert d’approvisionner les Palestiniens en eau dessalée, offre que les dirigeants palestiniens ont refusée, pour des raisons d’ordre politique.³⁴⁰

La question de l’eau au Moyen-Orient est un enjeu de taille pour les Palestiniens comme pour les Israéliens. C’est une question si épineuse qu’on en a réservé la négociation parmi les autres questions du statut final. Loin d’élucider les complexités du problème, le rapport d’AI se contente de dénigrer Israël de manière opportuniste et stérile. À cet égard, il n’est peut-être pas fortuit que la publication du rapport coïncide avec le lancement par le mouvement Palestinian Cultural Academic Boycott of Israel, d’une tournée de conférences dans les campus universitaires américains, sous le titre « Le contrôle de l’eau par Israël comme méthode d’apartheid et de nettoyage ethnique ».³⁴¹

Il paraît ironique qu’Amnistie Internationale ait choisi de se concentrer sur le problème de l’eau, puisqu’il s’agit d’une question sur laquelle Palestiniens et Israéliens ont manifesté une volonté considérable de coopération. En 2001, par exemple, Israël et l’Autorité palestinienne ont émis une déclaration conjointe affirmant leur intention partagée de « protéger l’infrastructure de l’eau du cycle de la violence ». Lors de son désengagement de Gaza en 2005, l’État d’Israël a laissé aux Palestiniens toutes les installations de traitement des eaux qu’il avait construites pour ses implantations dans la Bande de Gaza.³⁴² Tout récemment, en 2007, des municipalités israéliennes et palestiniennes ont publié un memorandum commun déclarant leur intérêt partagé à protéger les ressources hydriques.

334 Ehud Zion Waldoks, “Water Authority Blasts Amnesty Report,” Jerusalem Post, (27 octobre 2009).

335 Ibid.

336 “Snapshots: A Camera Blog,” Camera.org, (28 octobre 2009).

337 Bard, Mitchell, Will Israel Survive?, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2007, p. 95.

338 Ehud Zion Waldoks, “Water Authority Blasts Amnesty Report,” Jerusalem Post, (27 octobre 2009).

339 Bard, Mitchell, Will Israel Survive?, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2007, p. 95.

340 “Response to Amnesty International’s Report on Israeli-Palestinian Water Issues,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (27 octobre 2009).

341 Ehud Zion Waldoks, “Water Authority Blasts Amnesty Report,” Jerusalem Post, (27 octobre 2009).

342 “Israel Turns Over Gaza Water Processing Facility to Palestinians,” IMRA, (21 novembre 2005).

Article originally prepared by Mitchell Bard for the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. Translated by the Canada-Israel Committee

Already a member? Give a Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC) Membership as a Chanukah or Christmas gift.

Let the MEC Board know that you support their ethical sourcing policy. Defeat efforts by anti-Israel groups to impose their views on the purchasing practices of MEC.

Background

Anti-Israel activists tabled a resolution this past April at the MEC AGM in Vancouver to boycott the Israeli goods MEC carries. Thankfully the resolution was soundly defeated. However, we want to be proactive in preventing these activists from continuing to impose their views on MEC by attempting to pass resolutions, or by electing their friends to the board in order to demonize Israel.

MEC has a very stringent ethical sourcing policy, which must be followed by the Israeli companies with which it does business. Click here to view these ethical sourcing policies.

Call to Action

Become an MEC member at http://www.mec.ca or at a MEC store near you. Please sign up for updates at http://www.buycottisrael.ca.

In order to be eligible to vote for the board of directors, and at the next MEC AGM, we strongly urge you to become an MEC member by the last day of Chanukah, Dececember 18.

Vancouver Specific: If you are interested in attending the AGM in person at the end of April 2010 In Vancouver, please contact Daniel at danschloss@cicweb.ca

Only people who have membership at MEC by the end of 2009 will be eligible to vote for board members online, and to attend and vote at the AGM in late April, 2010.

The Goldstone report, which accused Israel of war crimes during last winter’s Gaza conflict, continues to wend its way through the United Nations, and the General Assembly was set to debate it on Nov. 4.

The controversial report’s flaws were succinctly highlighted in “Goldstone report undermines faith in international law” (Toronto Star, Oct. 21), by University of Toronto law professor Ed Morgan.

Morgan explained how the report’s author, South African judge Richard Goldstone, failed to maintain proper standards of evidence in arriving at the grave charge that Israel deliberately targeted and killed Palestinian civilians.

Morgan, an expert in international law, provided an important retort to Star columnist Haroon Siddiqui, who (as noted in last week’s column) has accepted, without question, all of the report’s allegations against Israel.

Morgan pointed out that time and again, Goldstone’s “fact-finding” mission in Gaza dealt with the facts in a highly partial manner. It either took Palestinian testimony against Israel at face value – Goldstone has since admitted that such testimony would not be convincing in a court of law – or failed to find evidence, readily available from Palestinian sources, that would have weighed in Israel’s defence.

For example, Morgan noted that the mission said it could find no evidence that Gaza’s Islamic University, which was struck by Israeli fire, had been used “as a military facility.”

On the contrary, Morgan wrote, such evidence was abundant: “The Islamic University was previously featured as the site of clashes between Fatah and Hamas gunmen, with Fatah soldiers identifying it as a weapons laboratory for the new and improved Qassam rockets that Hamas fires by the thousands into Israel. Palestinian Authority television had a full display of the weapons cache found in the Islamic University at the time.”

Goldstone turned a virtual blind eye to Hamas’ deliberate policy of using civilians as human shields in order to fire rockets at Israeli civilian centres. Morgan noted that Goldstone even ignored the declaration of Hamas spokesman Fathi Hammad: “‘This is why [we] have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine.’”

To be sure, Israelis are not indifferent or callous about the loss of innocent Palestinian lives, but they also know, contra the Goldstone report, that the overwhelming responsibility lies with Hamas for having intentionally put its own people in harm’s way.

Israeli officials argue that international law, and specifically the rules of war, need to catch up with the reality of conflict posed by groups such as Hamas that hide among civilians. By failing to acknowledge this reality, and by gathering evidence in a biased manner that played into Hamas’ hands, Goldstone, Morgan concluded, not only damaged his own reputation, he also inflicted damage on international law.

* * *

In an interview with Newsweek writer Lally Weymouth (”Peace Out of Necessity” Oct. 23), Israeli president Shimon Peres said: “I think [the Goldestone report is] a great victory for terror. Never before did any terrorist organization gain such recognition, in the most unfair way…

“First of all, we have a problem in the United Nations: There is a built-in majority against Israel. Israel doesn’t stand a chance to win any single issue because the Muslim and the Arab nations and the ones who follow them are a majority. I think Mr. Goldstone made a mistake by agreeing to preside over a committee which has an anti-Israeli majority – it cannot be objective if the judges are not objective. And the terms of reference were one-sided: to investigate the war crimes of Israel. And the conclusions – they’re one sided. There are 26 recommendations. Not one deals with terror. The terrorists are flying free and high. It’s unbelievable. Israel does not occupy Gaza. We left Gaza completely. We are the only country that forced our own settlers and army without any foreign pressure to leave Gaza. And for eight years we restrained [while they fired missiles]. No reference to it.”

Israeli Solar Gets Its Moment in the Sun

Deals for companies by GE and Siemens give Israel’s solar technology new credibility and further its goal to become a leader in renewable energy
By Neal Sandler
BusinessWeek, November 2, 2009

On Oct. 15, German engineering giant Siemens made headlines by paying nearly a half-billion dollars for Israel’s Solel Solar Systems, a pioneer in solar thermal technology. Solel has spent two decades perfecting a system that uses mirror-lined troughs to capture the sun’s energy and drive steam turbines that produce electricity. With Siemens (SI) as a parent, Solel will have access to deeper pockets, world-class manufacturing, and vastly broader global distribution.

Almost lost in the hoopla was another deal the same day that also involved Israeli solar technology—but in this case, even more state-of-the-art. Startup SolarEdge Technologies, based just north of Tel Aviv in Herzliya, said it had secured a $23 million round of financing, the largest such infusion to date into Israel’s fledgling solar energy industry. SolarEdge is working on advanced technology to improve the efficiency of photovoltaic cells. Among its new funders: giant General Electric (GE), in its first direct investment in the local solar scene.

Vote of Confidence

Taken together, the moves by Siemens and GE were seen as a powerful vote of confidence in Israeli solar technology. With the global renewables industry booming and growing interest in Israel as a source of cutting-edge technology, SolarEdge and other companies hope to become major players in the energy sector. “Israel developed solar thermal, and now we want to harness our high-tech expertise to bring new solar technologies to the market,” says Guy Sella, the founder and chief executive of SolarEdge.

Click here to read the whole article »