A newly released video of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could add some additional strain to the sometimes tense relationship between him and President Obama.

In the video, which is from 2001, Netanyahu — who reportedly did not know his speech was being recorded — speaks frankly in Hebrew about relations with the Clinton White House and the peace process.

As noted in Haaretz, Netanyahu seems to boast of his knowledge of the US by saying, “I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in their way.”

He also boasts of manipulating the U.S. in the ongoing peace process, as the Washington Post points out:

“They asked me before the election if I’d honor [the Oslo accords],” he said. “I said I would, but … I’m going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the ’67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I’m concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue.”

“These remarks are profoundly depressing. They bear out all of our fears and suspicions: that the government of Israel is led by a man who doesn’t believe the Palestinians and doesn’t believe in the chance of an agreement with them, who thinks that Washington is in his pocket and that he can pull the wool over its eyes. There’s no point in talking about Netanyahu’s impossible rightist coalition as an obstacle to progress. From now on, just say that Netanyahu doesn’t want it.”

Obama & Netanyahu got along splendidly—are you convinced?

Time has a way of sorting things out, and time will tell whether the image of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barrack Obama at their White House meeting last week accurately reflects reality. The two men laughed, joked, and heaped praise on one another. They claimed to be on accord on issues ranging from negotiations with the Palestinians to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Observers, however, have a right to be skeptical. For years, their relationship has been portrayed as that of two men who don’t trust each other and rarely agree. 

Preceding the White House meeting, Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren reportedly said in a private conversation that there was a “tectonic rift” between the two countries. He later said that he was overheard incorrectly and that there was really a tectonic “shift.” The two leaders have strong reasons to appear friendly and on the same page. Israel needs the U.S. America has been Israel’s strongest and most steadfast international ally. President Obama also needs to be perceived as supportive of Israel. He will no doubt run for reelection in 2012. He will not want to risk a diminishment in the support an overwhelming number of American Jews gave him in 2008. Obama and Netanyahu had many reasons to smile for the camera. We will probably soon learn if the smiles were genuine?

Tricky Bibi

This video should have been banned for broadcast to minors. This video should have been shown in every home in Israel, then sent to Washington and Ramallah. Banned for viewing by children so as not to corrupt them, and distributed around the country and the world so that everyone will know who leads the government of Israel. Channel 10 presented: The real (and deceitful ) face of Binyamin Netanyahu. Broadcast on Friday night on “This Week with Miki Rosenthal,” it was filmed secretly in 2001, during a visit by Citizen Netanyahu to the home of a bereaved family in the settlement of Ofra, and astoundingly, it has not created a stir.

The scene was both pathetic and outrageous. The last of Netanyahu’s devoted followers, who believe he is the man who will bring peace, would have immediately changed their minds. Presidents Barack Obama and Shimon Peres, who continue to maintain that Netanyahu will bring peace, would be talking differently had they seen this secretly filmed video clip. Even the objection of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to conducting direct negotiations with the man from the video would be understandable. What is there to discuss with a huckster whose sole purpose is “to give 2 percent in order to prevent 100 percent,” as his father told him, quoting his grandfather.

Israel has had many rightist leaders since Menachem Begin promised “many Elon Morehs,” but there has never been one like Netanyahu, who wants to do it by deceit, to mock America, trick the Palestinians and lead us all astray. The man in the video betrays himself in his own words as a con artist, and now he is again prime minister of Israel. Don’t try to claim that he has changed since then. Such a crooked way of thinking does not change over the years.

Forget the Bar-Ilan University speech, forget the virtual achievements in his last visit to the United States; this is the real Netanyahu. No more claims that the Palestinians are to blame for the failure of the Oslo Accords. Netanyahu exposed the naked truth to his hosts at Ofra: he destroyed the Oslo accords with his own hands and deeds, and he’s even proud of it. After years in which we were told that the Palestinians are to blame, the truth has emerged from the horse’s mouth.

And how did he do it? He recalled how he conditioned his signing of the 1997 Hebron agreement on American consent that there be no withdrawals from “specified military locations,” and insisted he choose those same locations, such as the whole of the Jordan Valley, for example. “Why is that important? Because from that moment on I stopped the Oslo Accords,” he boasts. The real Netanyahu also brags about his knowledge of America: “I know what America is. America is something that can be moved easily.” For the White House’s information.

He calls then-U.S. President Bill Clinton “extremely pro-Palestinian,” and says the Palestinians want to throw us into the sea. With such retrograde beliefs, no one can convincingly argue that he wants an agreement.

These remarks are profoundly depressing. They bear out all of our fears and suspicions: that the government of Israel is led by a man who doesn’t believe the Palestinians and doesn’t believe in the chance of an agreement with them, who thinks that Washington is in his pocket and that he can pull the wool over its eyes. There’s no point in talking about Netanyahu’s impossible rightist coalition as an obstacle to progress. From now on, just say that Netanyahu doesn’t want it.

What if Kadima joins the government and Yisrael Beiteinu leaves? Nothing will change. What if Danny Danon goes leftist and Tzipi Hotovely joins Peace Now? Netanyahu doesn’t want it.

If he had said so honestly, as he did when he thought the camera in Ofra was turned off, then he could have been forgiven for his extreme positions. It’s his right to think that way and get elected for it. The people will have gotten what they chose. But when Netanyahu hides his real positions under camouflage netting and entangles them in webs of deceit, he not only reduces the chances of reaching an agreement, he also damages Israel’s political culture. Many people may want a right-wing, nationalist prime minister, but a prime minister who is a con artist? Is is too much to expect of Netanyahu that he speak to us precisely as he spoke in Ofra? Why do a handful of settlers deserve to know the truth, and not us? Tell us the truth, Netanyahu. Talk to us as if the cameras were off, just as you thought then, in 2001 in Ofra.

Netanyahu: ‘America is a thing you can move very easily’

The United States and Israel have made a huge effort this month to patch up the sometimes difficult relationship between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. But a newly released video of Netanyahu, speaking in an unvarnished manner in 2001 about relations with the United States and the peace process, may cause some heartburn at the White House.  “I know what America is,” Netanyahu told a group of terror victims, apparently not knowing his words were being recorded. “America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in their way.” Netanyahu also bragged how he undercut the peace process when he was prime minister during the Clinton administration.

“They asked me before the election if I’d honor [the Oslo accords],” he said. “I said I would, but … I’m going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the ’67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I’m concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue.” Gideon Levy, a left-leaning columnist for Haaretz newspaper, declared: “This video should have been banned for broadcast to minors. This video should have been shown in every home in Israel, then sent to Washington and Ramallah. Banned for viewing by children so as not to corrupt them, and distributed around the country and the world so that everyone will know who leads the government of Israel.” Of course, the video is from nearly ten years ago. Opinions change, based on circumstances and experience. But who knows what leaders are really saying when they think the cameras aren’t filming?

EU rebukes Israel for convicting Palestinian protester

“The European Union has criticised Israel for convicting an organiser of weekly Palestinian protests against the West Bank separation barrier.  EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said she was “deeply concerned” about Abdullah Abu Rahmeh, who now faces several years in prison.  She said he was a “human rights defender” committed to non-violent protest.  Israel’s foreign ministry described her statement as highly improper.  Jailed since December, Abdullah Abu Rahmeh was convicted by a military court on Tuesday of inciting protests in the West Bank village of Bilin and of participating in the protests without a legal permit.  Lady Ashton expressed deep concern “that the possible imprisonment of Mr Abu Rahmeh is intended to prevent him and other Palestinians from exercising their legitimate right to protest against the existence of the separation barriers in a non-violent manner,” her office said.”

“The EU considers the route of the barrier where it is built on Palestinian land to be illegal,” it quoted her as saying in a statement…Israel says the barrier was established to stop Palestinian suicide bombers entering from the West Bank.  But Palestinians point to its route, winding deep into the West Bank around Israeli settlements – which are illegal under international law – and say it is a way to grab territory they want for their future state.  In 2004, the International Court of Justice in The Hague issued an advisory ruling that the barrier was illegal and should be removed where it did not follow the Green Line, the internationally recognised boundary between the West Bank and Israel.”

Whistle-blowing website Wikileaks has published a CIA memo examining the implications of the US being perceived as an “exporter of terrorism”. BBC NEWS

“This CIA ”Red Cell” report from February 2, 2010, looks at what will happen if it is internationally understood that the United States is an exporter of terrorism; ’Contrary to common belief, the American export of terrorism or terrorists is not a recent phenomenon, nor has it been associated only with Islamic radicals or people of Middle Eastern, African or South Asian ethnic origin. This dynamic belies the American belief that our free, open and integrated multicultural society lessens the allure of radicalism and terrorism for US citizens.’ The report looks at a number cases of US exported terrorism, including attacks by US based or financed Jewish, Muslim and Irish-nationalism terrorists.” – WikiLeaks

“It’s an insult to the viewing public to suggest they can’t distinguish between the humanitarian needs of thousands of children and families in Gaza and the political sensitivities of the Middle East. It’s a distinction which anyone can make and to suggest the BBC should somehow not allow people to show their compassion because of the wider controversies in the Middle East is a case, in this instance, of the BBC totally getting its priorities upside down.” – NICK CLEGG, LIBERAL DEMOCRAT LEADER

The police, the Catholic Church and the state conspired to cover up a priest’s suspected role in one of the worst atrocities of the Northern Ireland Troubles, an investigation has found.  Nine people died in bombings in Claudy, County Londonderry on 31 July 1972.  The NI Police Ombudsman’s probe found that high-level talks led to Fr James Chesney, a suspect in the attack, being moved to the Irish Republic. BBC NEWS

On 30 November 1972 Police Officer 3 wrote to the NIO stating;

‘For some time I have been considering what action, if any, could be taken to render harmless a dangerous priest, Father Chesney, who is leading an I.R.A. Unit in South Derry………I attach a précis of the intelligence on Father Chesney and suggest that our masters may find it possible to bring the subject into any conversations they may be having with the Cardinal or Bishops at some future date..…..’ – 4.22 Claudy Report

In response to this correspondence the NIO wrote to Police Officer 3 on 6 December 1972;

‘Many thanks for your note on Father Chesney. You will be relieved to hear that Secretary of State saw the Cardinal privately on 5 December and gave him a full account of his disgust at Chesney’s behaviour. The Cardinal said that he knew that the priest was a very bad man and would see what could be done. The Cardinal mentioned the possibility of transferring him to Donegal.’ – 4.24 Claudy Report

AL HUTCHINSON

POLICE OMBUDSMAN FOR NORTHERN IRELAND

24 AUGUST 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr8C039Djcw

“The death of Iraq weapons expert David Kelly was a “textbook case” of suicide according to the pathologist who performed the post-mortem examination.” BBC NEWS

A Detective who attended the scene of Dr David Kelly’s death reports that there was not much blood present which throws up some serios questions about the cause of death.  Mr Coe who is now retired from the police said that he and other police officers were ordered to search Dr David Kelly’s home for documents of a “sensitve nature” and that this was done shortly after Dr Kelly’s body was found.

Two paramedics who attended the scene confirmed the lack of blood while later the Hutton Inquiry states the cause of death to be from loss of blood.  You have to ask yourself where did all that blood go? Mr Coe recounts: “We were looking for documents relating to Iraq. No one knew whether he kept any papers of a sensitive nature at home. We had to search. If someone writes a suicide note, you’ll find it. We were looking for politically sensitive documents.”

However Mr Coe does not suspect any foul play and believe this was a suicide.  Rather strange considering that a man bleeds to death without leaving much blood at the scene.  To me it seems Dr David Kelly did not die at the scene and was transported there after his death. Furthermore, just days before his death Dr kelly attended an inquiry into the leaking of a Government document which exposed the “sexing up” of a report into the need to attack Iraq.  Dr kelly said during the inquiry  “I will probably be found dead in the woods.”

Only yesterday I was thinking why would Wiki Leaks really need an Insurance File but today shows us this need.  It seems obvious that smear tactics have been used against Julian Assange and is something which is to be expected when your responsible for leaking sensitive but important public knowledge.  It seems clear someone wants Wiki Leaks down and if that happens maybe we will all learn what is inside the Insurance File.

“The Swedish Prosecution Authority website said chief prosecutor Eva Finne had come to the decision that Julian Assange was not subject to arrest. In a brief statement Eva Finne said: “I don’t think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape.” BBC NEWS

A novel use of encryption by whistle-blowing website Wikileaks could “challenge the legal system for years to come,” according to an influential observer of the hacking community.  Emmanuel Goldstein, editor of 2600 The Hacker Quarterly magazine, made his comments in reference to an encrypted file recently posted on the site.

Recent polls suggest 78% of Evening Standard readers believe a new inquest is needed into the death of Dr David Kelly.