The Latest from Iran (28 December): The Regime's Arresting Strategy

2115 GMT: Battling with Statements. The Assembly of Combatant Clergymen has condemned those it says are responsible for violence on Ashura, namely the security forces and plainclothes militia: "The Almighty God will cut off the hands of these deceived fools." The Assembly added:

Today we should cry blood that on the day of Hossein’s Aashura and after all sorts of insults to Imam Khomeini’s family and his legacy by the phony defenders of the revolution, there was an attack on the prayer hall [in Jamaran, where former President Khatami was speaking] that is a reminder of the name and memory of the Imam. The peaceful ritual of commemorating Aashura was attacked by clubs, batons and chains and by insulting slogans. Those who [did this] made the utmost insults to both Ashura and Imam Khomeini and then beat and bashed innocent people.

Daftar-Tahkim-Vahdat, the main reformist Student Alumni Organisation, also issued a statement:

What a regret that a government that considers itself to be risen from religious teachings and a national revolution, on the noon of Ashura opens fire on innocents and does what even the most notorious rulers of this country throughout the history [e.g. the Shah deposed in 1979] had not dared to do.

2055 GMT: Taking Sides? We've posted the video of President Obama's statement (see 2020 GMT) and it's even harder-hitting than we thought:"History will be on the side of those who seek justice"

2035 GMT: How Many Detained Yesterday? Rah-e-Sabz reports that 400 to 500 protesters were arrested Sunday in Isfahan, including the brother and two nephews of former Minister of Interior Abdollah Nouri. Human Rights Activists News Agency are now saying 1100 people have been transferred to Evin Prison in Tehran.

2025 GMT: Dastghaib Calls for A Movement. Ayatollah Dastgheib has issued a statement for fellow marja (high-ranking clerics) to join him in calling on the Government to adhere to the Constitution.

NEW Latest Iran Video: Obama Condemns “Violent & Unjust Suppression” (28 December)
NEW Iran: Ashura’s Message “Iranians Are Not Punching Bags” (Josh Shahryar)
NEW Iran: A Point of No Return?
Iran: A 5-Minute, 5-Point Reaction to The Events of Ashura
Iran: The False US Friends of the “Iranian People” (An Open Letter to Charles Krauthammer)
Latest Iran Video: The Ashura Protests (27 December — 3rd Set)
Latest Iran Video: The Ashura Protests (27 December — 2nd Set)
Latest Iran Video: The Ashura Protests (27 December)
The Latest from Iran (27 December): The Day of Ashura

2020 GMT: Obama Speaks. The US Government has definitely decided to throw rhetorical support behind the Iranian opposition. The President, in a press conference which will focus on the foiled attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound jet, has taken the time to comment on events in Iran.

Obama hailed the "courage and conviction" of Iran's people and said the Government must respect their rights:

We call for the immediate release of all who have been unjustly detained....The United States joins with the international community in strongly condemning the violent and unjust suppression of innocent Iranian citizens. What is talking place within Iran is not about the United States or any other country. It is about the Iranian people and their aspirations for justice.

1900 GMT: They Burned 18 Garbage Bins?! Sometimes you have to admire the Iranian regime. It is walking a fine line between showing that Sunday's protests were serious enough that the demonstrators must be punished but not so serious enough that they pose a threat to the regime. This is tonight's magical public-relations solution:

Head of the Public Relations office of Tehran's Safety Services and Firefighting Organization Behrouz Tashakkor said 838 firefighters were dispatched to various locations in Tehran on Ashura. "Nine residential buildings, 9 vehicles, 7 shops, 2 banks and 3 power stations were set on fire [by anti-government protestors]," Tashakkor said.

The Iranian official added that "18 garbage bins" were also set on fire.

1855 GMT: Karroubi Targeted? Saham News reports that Mehdi Karoubi, attending an Ashura mourning ceremony with his family, was attacked by plainclothes militia as he left the mosque. Karoubi’s car was attacked and vandalised, breaking the front windscreen, before onlookers intervened.

1840 GMT: More on Emad Baghi's Arrest (see 1140 GMT). An EA contact has given us the following information:

This morning plainclothes officers entered Baghi's home, with others standing at the door. They insulted his wife and daughters and turned him home into a garrison and badly beat his brother-in-law. As Baghi was taken away, he read a verse of the Qu'ran calling for tolerance and patience in difficulties. One of his captors said, "His life is short enough that he can see the future."

One of the accusations against Baghi is his interview with the late Grand Ayatollah Montazeri in a movie recently broadcast by BBC Persian.

Baghi's whereabouts tonight are unknown.

1740 GMT: The BBC has published a comprehensive list of Western countries which have strongly criticised the Iranian Government's bloody crackdown and called for Tehran's restraint.

1555 GMT: Where is Mousavi's Body? According to the Islamic Republic News Agency, the body of Mir Hossein Mousavi's nephew Seyed Ali is being held by Government authorities while investigations are carried out on a death "under suspicious circumstances".

1530 GMT: Javan Farda reports that the son of Ayatollah Jaleleddin Taheri has been arrested in Isfahan. Taheri has been under pressure in recent days after his attempt to lead a memorial service for Grand Ayatollah Montazeri.

1444 GMT: Rah-e-Sabz is reporting that metro stations in central Tehran have been closed. The likelihood is that this is because of Government fears of escalation of protests at 7 Tir Square.

1440 GMT: Arresting the Martyr's Mother. One of "the others" arrested at the house of activist Mahin Fahimi (see 1335 GMT) was the mother of Sohrab
Arabi, who came to prominence when it emerged in July that he died from Basiji gunfire on 15 June.

1435 GMT: First Clashes of Today? We are getting reports of a crowd gathering in Tehran's 7 Tir Square and clashes with security forces.

1405 GMT: Keeping Rafsanjani in a Box. Former President Hashemi Rafsanjani did not make an appearance yesterday, but that does not mean that the regime pressure on relented --- indeed, since that pressure might have muted Rafsanjani on Ashura, why not maintain it?

Fars News keeps up the campaign this morning, claiming that Rafsanjani's daughter Faezeh Hashemi joined "rioters" on Ashura after spending her holidays in the north of Iran (in other words, she partied during the first days of Moharram and joined the protests just for fun).

1400 GMT: The Arrests. Another vital list, this one from Neo-Resistance, which posts these details of arrests:

Ebrahim Yazdi (former Foreign Minister)
Emad-e'Din Baghi (Human Rights Activist)
Morteza Hadji (Minister of educaion during Khatami era)
Leila Tavassoli, daughter of Mohammad Tavassoli
Seyed Hosein Mousavi Tabrizi (Head of the clerical Association of Teachers and Researchers of Qom)
Alireza Beheshti Shirazi (Editor in Chief of Mousavi's online journal Kalameh Sabz)
Ghorban Behzadian Nejad (Mousavi consultant)
Mohamad Bagherian (Mousavi consultant)
Rasouli (deputy of President Khatami's Baran Foundation)
Forouzandeh (Manager of Mousavi's office)
Mohammad Sadegh Rabbani (retired university professor who used to be the general prosecutor 20 years ago, arrested yesterday 27 December)
Mohammad Moin (son of former Presidential candidate Mostafa Moin, the former Minister of Science and higher education, arrested 27 December)
Heshmatollah Tabarzadi (Student Activist)
Haleh Sahabi (Women's Rights activist)

1355 GMT: Reports that journalist Mostafa Izadi arrested.

1350 GMT: We Break for This Official Announcement. Press TV: "Brigadier-General Masoud Jazayeri, the deputy commander of Iran's armed forces, on Monday defined the 'actions of a group of hooligans on such days of mourning' as another 'low act' incomparable to anything seen before. He described the 'small group of vandals' as marginal compared to 'millions of real Ashura mourners'."

Now back to regular programming....

1342 GMT: Essential Information. HomyLafayette has posted a summary with information on those swept up in the Government's wave of arrests. Josh Shahryar has compiled information, complete with map, on the locations across Iran of protests yesterday. And an EA reader points us to an excellent collection of photographs from the Ashura protests.

1335 GMT: Claims coming in that Government forces entered the home of peace activist Mahin Fahimi, arresting her, her son, and others.

1303 GMT: Mousavi's Body. We continue follow conflicting reports over the fate of the body of Mir Hossein Mousavi's nephew Seyed Ali with reports that it was taken from the Ebn -e-Sina Hospital by Government authorities.

1258 GMT: Deaths and Arrests. One of those killed yesterday was the son of Shahin Mahinfar, the prominent IRIB journalist.

An Iranian source reports that Abolfazl Ghadyani of the Mojahedin has been arrested.

1236 GMT: There are unconfirmed reports that the head of the Iranian Embassy in Norway has resigned citing his support of the green movement.

1205 GMT: The Human Rights Activists News Agency claims that 550 people arrested on Sunday have been transferred to Evin Prison.

1200 GMT: Answering Our Question. Masoud at The Newest Deal has a lengthy analysis which responds to our interim assessment this morning, "Point of No Return?". His reply? "One thing that is certain is that there is no turning back."

1140 GMT: The Regime Strikes Back (Cont.). The strategy of the Government is to "break" the movement --- much as it appeared to do in June, in July, in August, in September --- with arrests and disruption of communications.

EA sources confirm that Emad Baghi, the founder of the Association for Defense of Prisoners Rights, has been arrested. (Parleman News has now reported this.) A reliable source writes that Heshmatollah Tabarzadi, leader of the banned Democratic Front of Iranian People, has been taken from his home.

The site Rah-e-Sabz is under sustained cyber-attack and, of course, Kalemeh has been hindered by the arrest of its editor (see 1040 GMT). It is also reported that Etemaad newspaper has been closed.

1040 GMT: The Regime Strikes Back. A pattern is emerging of the Iranian Government trying to regain the initiative through arrests last night and this morning. Alireza Beheshti Shirazi, the editor of Mir Hossein Mousavi's Kalemeh, has been detained.

1010 GMT: The Mousavi "Assassination" Story (The Official Iran Version). Fars News tries to put both the Ashura demonstrations and the death of Mir Hossein Mousavi's nephew into "proper" perspective. As with the death of Neda Agha Soltan in June, the killing of Seyed Ali Mousavi was carried out by specially-trained teams, linked to the 10 "terrorists" slain by Iranian forces. The story will then be taken up by foreign media as proof of the evil of Iran's regime.

0955 GMT: The Mousavi "Assassination" Story. The New York Times has a lengthy and very useful article, written by Robert Worth and Nazila Fathi. In the review of Sunday's events, one passage is striking, especially if the line is taken up by other US media (who have in past have been fond of filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf as a "spokesman" for the Green movement):

Unlike the other protesters reported killed on Sunday, Ali Moussavi [the nephew of Mir Hossein Mousavi] appears to have been assassinated in a political gesture aimed at his uncle, according to Mohsen Makhmalbaf, an opposition figure based in Paris with close ties to the Moussavi family.

Mr. Moussavi was first run over by a sport utility vehicle outside his home, Mr. Makhmalbaf wrote on his Web site. Five men then emerged from the car, and one of them shot Mr. Moussavi.

0950 GMT: Correct us if we're wrong, but it appears that the reformist site Rah-e-Sabz, an important source for news, has not updated since 0120 GMT (4:50 a.m. in Tehran).

0935 GMT: Non-Violence and Self-Defense. We've posted a provocative analysis by Josh Shahryar of the events of Ashura, "Iranians Are Not Punching Bags".

0930 GMT: Rah-e-Sabz has more on what appears to be a Government raid on the offices of the Assembly of Teachers and Researchers of Qom. Earlier it was reported that Hossein Mousavi Tabrizi, the head of the Assembly, was arrested.

0845 GMT: The Regime (Tries to) Strike Back. Unconfirmed reports that, in addition to the arrest of prominent reformist Ebrahim Yazdi, Iranian authorities have detained Mir Hossein Mousavi's advisors Mohammad Baghriyan and Ghorban Behzadian-Nejad.

0755 GMT: We're still getting amazing video from yesterday. The latest clip --- of heavily-armed security forces pinned back against a wall by protesters --- will go up in two minutes.

0745 GMT: A day to catch up with news, to stand back and assess.

My own impression --- and this is personal, not an "official" EA line --- is that the protests of Ashura were an important marker that the Iranian Government will not stand, at least with its current President and its current political approach. How much farther this goes --- is this now an indication that only sweeping changes in the Iranian system, extending to the authority of the Supreme Leader, will avert even more dramatic showdowns? --- is what I cannot quite grasp.

We've posted two "thinkpieces" setting out the possibilities: late last night, I wrote a "5-Minute, 5-Point Reaction" and this morning we've set out some thoughts in "A Point of No Return?"

Palestine: Abbas "I Promise, No Third Intifada"

Last week, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas spoke with the Wall Street Journal's Charles Levinson about a wide range of issues including : the future of peace talks with Israel and the Obama Administration's role; Israeli settlements; boycotts; the possibility of a third Intifada; alleged CIA links to Palestinian "torture"; and the Goldstone Report on Gaza.

Abbas' message in the interview was that he was siding with a "wait and see" approach following his re-election as the head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Abbas indicated that, with the international community supporting the Palestinian Authority on the status of the settlements and Jerusalem, there was no need for a call to a third Intifada - although he would like to see more pressure from Washington on Tel Aviv.

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

The Full Transcript:

Q - A recent opinion poll shows that 57% of Palestinians support you over Hamas, which got just 37% support, a big change over polls from just two months ago. The Fatah and PLO leaderships have similarly asked you to remain in office. So can you start by explaining why you decided not to run for reelection?

A - The decision I took had a number of reasons.

The main reason is the stopping of the peace process and [Benjamin] Netanyahu's refusal to stop the settlements according to the road map and his refusal to recognize UN resolutions 242 and 338 as the framework of the negotiations. That is what was agreed in the road map. We negotiated with [Ehud] Olmert on this basis under the supervision of the Americans. Then Netanyahu came and rejected all this, even though the American government, as we heard from [Barack] Obama himself, said that Israel must stop all its building in the settlements including natural growth. The moratorium on settlements Netanyahu did exempts Jerusalem, and 3,000 residential units and public buildings. So for this reason we felt the horizon for the political process that we promised our people wasn't there.

There are also other reasons connected to the Palestinian reconciliation efforts. We signed this agreement and everybody agreed and then Hamas reneged on its agreement. They then asked to have the signing in Damascus, meaning Hamas was not against the contents of the agreement but it just wants to change the place of the signing from Egypt to Damascus, which we refused. The Goldstone issue I consider secondary, but it is also among the important issues. We felt there was an unjust campaign against us and the Palestinian Authority without any justification. For that I decided that I will not run in the elections. We are waiting for the new elections and someone other than me will run.

Q - Who do you want to run after you? The same poll showed that Marwan Barghouti enjoyed the support of 67% of Palestinians. Do you think Marwan could be a good leader of the Palestinian people or would you prefer to see someone else succeed you?

A - I don't have a candidate. It's not for me to tell the Palestinian people to elect a specific person. It's for the Palestinian people to decide. If Marwan runs, he is a man who has a good reputation and a good history of resistance, and it's not out of the question that he will run. But the matter is in the hands of the voters, not in my hand, and the door is open for anyone to run. I don't have a candidate.

Q - It appears Mr. Netanyahu has not accepted your conditions for resuming direct negotiations. As long as there are no talks, then what is your strategy for advancing the Palestinians toward statehood?

A - First, let me say that these aren't preconditions. We don't have conditions to go to negotiations. There is a road map binding on all and that all agreed to. There are obligations to Israel and obligations for the Palestinians. There is a part [of the road map] that talks about an independent Palestinian state and ending the occupation of '67. The Arab peace initiative also became a main part of the road map. It calls on Israel to withdraw from the Palestinian territories and 57 Arab and Islamic countries will normalize relations with Israel.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu says 'I call on Abbas to negotiate, but he has to understand that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel, that's not up for discussion. The refugees -- there will be no talk about them at all. He has to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.' So who is putting conditions. I'm not putting them. He is putting conditions. Now the ball is in the international community's court and specifically in America's court. It should see how Europe addressed the problem. Europe stressed that the Palestinians' lands of 1967 are occupied lands, and east Jerusalem is occupied and at Annapolis all the states participating without exception called for stopping the expansion of settlements. The international community supports our position, and so it's up to them to move to apply international law and not to take a position just to take a position.

Q - So are you just waiting for the international community to step in and solve the problem for you or do you have your own strategy?

A - We have experience of direct negotiations with Israel. We had direct negotiations with Israel in January 1993, leading to the Oslo Agreement. Not a single other country had anything to do with that, not America, Russia, Europe or others. The Israeli administration at that time led by Yitzhak Rabin desired peace. If I see that Netanyahu is interested in peace, I would have no problem negotiating with him. The negotiations with Olmert were all direct between him and me. The Americans didn't get involved. I am not against direct negotiations, but on what basis do we go to negotiations. I am not putting conditions.

Q - So as long as you're not negotiating for a Palestinian state, what is your plan?

A - Today it's very important to understand the relations between us and the Israelis are continuing with all the arms of the Israeli government without exception, defense, security, water, health. With all the ministries, without exception, the contacts are ongoing. The only thing that isn't continuing are the political negotiations. We are now waiting for what is the American position. [George] Mitchell will come in the beginning of next month and we will see what will happen. We are waiting for the Quartet meeting in Moscow and we will see what comes out of that. There is political movement, but the results of this haven't yet come out.

We are open to all possibilities. Any party that wants to play a role in the peace process we are willing to hear them out. And then we'll decide. But we want someone to move. When the Americans talk about indirect negotiations between us and the Israelis, we want to know what it is they mean exactly. I've heard this talk about indirect negotations, but until I hear something concrete from the American side, I can't judge.

Q - You have criticized the Obama administration's role in the peace process recently. What is your opinion of the role Obama has played in the peace process thus far?

A - We still have hope that Obama can play a role in the political process. Maybe we don't agree with him on the recent issue that we come to negotiations on the basis of the Israeli moratorium. We don't agree with that. But that doesn't mean we have lost hope in the American administration or President Obama. We are still seeing that President Obama can do something.

Q - Do you stand by the comments you made to a South American newspaper during your visit there recently that President Obama has done nothing for Mideast Peace?

A - I didn't say that. What I said was that what has happened we are not agreeing with, but he's still in the first year of his presidency and we have to wait and judge him after. The difference between him and past U.S. presidents is that from the beginning of his term he started to take up the peace process and that's a positive sign. We will not judge him from the beginning and say forget it, he's hopeless.

Q - What do you want from Obama?

A - I want him to put the peace process on the track. Until now, I don't think they have succeeded. But the American administration says establishing a Palestinian state is an American strategic interest and also at the same time it will protect Israel. They have to convince the two sides to solve this. They have to come and say this is the end game and pressure the Israeli government to accept it. Why don't they pressure the Israeli government. The Israeli government sometimes needs someone to come and help it see its own interests and the interests of its people.

Q - How?

A - I want him to declare the framework for negotiations and to ask Israel to stop the settlements along the lines of what I presented to the Israeli Minister of Defense. I told the Israeli Minister of Defense, Ehud Barak, that he can do an undeclared but total moratorium for five months without announcing it, without publicity, just tell the Americans. But it must be a total freeze that includes East Jerusalem.

Q - Obama tried to ask the Israelis for a complete freeze…

A - …and he couldn't do that. He needs to be fair, meaning, based on international law ask both sides to implement their obligations. I'll give you an example. When we began to implement the road map they were always asking me, do this, do that, do this. We have done everything that was required of us under the first stage of the road map. We said to the Americans, now tell the Israelis to do their parts. And they said we will ask them. And what happened in the end is we did everything that was asked of us and the Israelis didn't do a single thing. As long as something clear is asked of me and I did it, then America should now ask Israel to do its part. That hasn't happened and that's why I'm not running for reelection.

Q - And you're serious about this. No way you're going to reconsider?

A - This is, God willing, very serious.

Q - And if there are no elections, will you remain in power or will you resign?

A - This is an important point. I said that I will not run in the elections. I will exert all possible efforts to make sure there are elections. In the Egyptian brokered accord there is total agreement with all the factions that there should be elections on June 28. If tomorrow, Hamas signs this agreement, then there will be elections on June 28. There is no problem with holding elections. If there is no hope for any sort of elections, then I have other options. What are those other options? I'm not talking about them yet.

Q - Many people are talking about the possibility of a third intifada erupting. Is this just talk, or is this a real possibility and what would have to happen for this to happen?

A - I will not allow a new intifada. As long as I'm in office, I will not allow anybody to start a new intifada. Never never. But if I leave, it's no longer my responsibility and I can't make any guarantees. It could happen. It's not my business to follow up. I promise and I can do. And I already promised and I did during the invasion of Gaza. At that time everybody asked me to go to a third intifada, but I prevented anybody from doing it.

The evidence is that in three years it hasn't happened. The evidence is that every day there are provocations and there hasn't been a violent response. So I have control of matters and I am confident that I can control things as long as I'm in office.

Q - This means stepping down carries a big responsibility with it, that by stepping down you could be responsible for a new round of violence.

A - It could happen. It will pain me. I will be very angry if something happens in the future because it's not the proper act to be done by the Palestinian people. But at that time it's not my responsibility. I am responsible as long as I am in office. The moment I leave it's not my responsibility.

Q - You said this isn't proper for the Palestinian people? Why are you against violence?

A - Since the 1970s, I believed in peace, and I worked for peace and for the relations and the contacts between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Until now I am convinced that peace is the only choice for both sides, for the Palestinians and the Israelis. The other choice is destructive.

From the first day of the intifada I said I am against this intifada. From the first day and I didn't change my mind. When I ran in the elections I said publicly, I am against the armed intifada, I am against the futile rockets and I am for peace. If you want to elect me, okay, if you don't, it doesn't matter.

Q - At the PLO conference last week and again tonight you seem more comfortable, more relaxed.

A - Now I am relaxed. I know what I will do. I told everybody about my intentions. And now I am relaxed.

Q - We appear to be close to a prisoner swap deal for Gilad Shalit. How will this deal impact the domestic Palestinian political stage?

A - Shalit, the most famous soldier around the world. I am for this deal. We have to get rid of this fast. This man should return back to his family and at the same time at least 1,000 prisoners will be released and come back to their families. It's not important whether Hamas concluded this deal or anybody else. At the end the result is there are some people who will go back to their families and this deal will give hope to the others to be released. I don't think it will have a big effect on the Palestinian political stage. In the Palestinian society everybody will be happy with it. Maybe it will give Hamas some popularity. For me that doesn't matter. Let them get whatever they want to get. But at the end some people will be happy with this deal.

Q - There have been a number of reports lately, from human rights groups, and even from the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Interior, alleging that prisoners in Palestinian custody have been mistreated or tortured, and some have even died as a result. Another report has alleged the CIA is connected to these government bodies allegedly responsible for this. Is there truth to these complaints? What is the CIA's exact relationship to the Palestinian intelligence apparatus?

A - We have no relationship with the CIA at all. We have a relationship with the State Department. The State Department sends us some Americans to train and rebuild the Palestinian security apparatuses. That's it. There is not any kind of cooperation with the CIA. We have no connection to the CIA. There is U.S. training of our forces. We don't deny that at all. But not just American. Russia, and Jordan and France and many countries help in training us. And Dayton's team is from a number of countries, not just America. America gives us nothing but training. If we want weapons we have to buy it or bring it as grants from other countries to Jordan and we keep it in Jordan until we have the permission from the Israeli side to import it. If we do not have this permission we cannot bring even one single bullet. In other words, we are not smuggling anything.

Q - What is the message you want to direct to the Israeli people?

A - If we reach a final solution, we will drop all kinds of other demands. The second point is, there will be a third party on our territories agreed upon by the Israelis and the Palestinians. From where? Maybe NATO, the Americans, the Europeans, whatever they want. They will be there for a while to preserve the borders and keep it under control so the Israelis will be safe.

Beside that, they tried us and we are working very hard to preserve our own security and also to prevent anybody from committing any acts against the Israelis. On the other hand, every day there is an invasion in one of our cities from the Israeli army and from the settlers themselves. Last time they burned a mosque in one of our villages. Every day they go to Jerusalem either to occupy some of our houses or to demolish houses. There is no cooperation between the Israelis and us in this area. They do not help us.

We are saying to the Israelis: We are serious in building peace with you, in building a Palestinian state that lives side by side with Israel on the '67 borders in peace and stability. And we also, through the Arab peace initiative, will bring 57 Arab and Islamic countries to recognize you. I think this is an historic opportunity for the Israeli people to live in peace. I know that 70 percent of the Israeli population are for peace, but if your government doesn't want peace, nobody knows what will happen, and how the situation will get worse. And we don't want this. This is an opportunity to be seized. This is my message for the Israeli people.

Q - What do you want to say in response to those who criticized you for agreeing to delay a vote on the Goldstone report?

A - Goldstone, when he came to investigate, Hamas attacked him, saying he was a Zionist Jew and that he was biased against the Palestinian people. We welcomed him because we wanted the world to know who attacked the Palestinian people so they could be held accountable. Goldstone put out a 575-page report and it went to Geneva to the human rights council and the matter was discussed there. The council didn't reach a decision so it was decided to refer it to the next session, so I agreed. And the world turned upside down saying I had sold the Palestinian cause, and the world and the media, and the satellite channels all attacked us. Even the Israelis attacked us. After these attacks, I decided to return the matter to the human rights council and that's what I did. Now it is at the general assembly. The accusation that I am the one who alone agreed to delay it is not true.

Q - You have encouraged recently Palestinians to boycott products made in the settlements, but many of your Palestinian critics would like to see you go further in leading a non-violent resistance movement against Israel. Do you support those who are calling for a broader boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel?

A - This is our right to boycott the settlements. The settlements are taking our land and selling the products to the world so we ask the world not to buy these products. These are our rights. The people of Bilin and Nilin go out and protest peacefully against the wall. I am with any peaceful protest that expresses the opinion of the people. I support this. But I am against the bullets and the rockets. We are asking every day the European countries and the world to stop buying these products and not to buy these products. But we never said boycott Israel. We never boycotted Israel. We have contacts with them every day. We buy from them electricity, water, and even the air. We buy air! They sell us air! Truly, the air. Cell phone frequencies. And they haggle with us over the air. 'We'll give 3.1 of air' they say, and we say 'no we want 3.8,' and they say 'no way you'll get .8 of air.' AIR!

Q - People say you aren't prepared to make concessions for peace and they say that if you were, you wouldn't have rejected the Olmert peace offer. Is this true?

A - Never. Not true. We were negotiating, and remained negotiating until the last day of the Bush administration. Condoleezza Rice suggested we meet again on January 3 in Washington to seize the last chance, and we agreed to that, but in that time, there was the attack on Gaza, and still I agreed to go, but the Israeli administration said it can't do it in these circumstances.

Q - Do you think Benjamin Netanyahu wants to make peace with you?
I can't say Netanyahu doesn't want peace, I can't see what's inside him, but his policy suggests he doesn't. We have to keep hope. If we say there is no hope then we put our people in a corner. I'm prepared to wait.

Q - If and when you step down as president, how do you think people will remember your term? What accomplishments are you proud of, and what do you regret not having accomplished?

A - The people will decide what I did and what I didn't do. They will decide if I succeeded or if I failed. I am proud of my role in the Oslo accords and for sticking to peace and maintaining law and order in the West Bank. I am proud the economy is developing, and the social situation is improving. I reached an agreement to reconcile with Hamas but Hamas backed out. I did all that I can do. What I couldn't do is conclude a peace treaty with the Israelis. But that's not due to my mistake. Maybe it's the other side's mistake. I want people to know that I have held to the core values the PLO adopted in 1988 and never compromised them. I never conceded on '67 borders, or on East Jerusalem as the capital, and have always insisted on the rights of refugees, and that the problem be solved in accordance with the Arab peace initaitve. But, peace with Israel. I couldn't reach this. It's not my fault.

Iran: Ashura's Message "Iranians Are Not Punching Bags" (Josh Shahryar)

Josh Shahryar offers this assessment of Sunday's events, also posted on his blog:

The Ashura (December 27) protests across Iran are over. Tens of thousands marched across the country as in the past to show their discontent with dictatorship and human rights violations. They yet again proved that the Iranian struggle is far from over. But after following the protests for almost 200 days, I don’t think that it was just another show of force. This was a tipping point in their struggle for one of the most basic of human rights –-- the freedom to speak one’s mind without fear of repression.

Since June, the people of Iran have come out to streets peacefully and have tried to make their voices heard. And what was the government’s response? Bullets, batons, cables… arrests, injuries, deaths… torture, rape, murder. Few people have been so fearless and devout with their resolve to overturn the tide of tyranny as the people of Iran. Their humanity has been written about and well-deservedly praised. However, let us not have unreasonable expectations from them. They are human after all. And like all humans, they are susceptible to frustration and eventually – anger.

The Latest from Iran (28 December): Taking Stock
Iran: A Point of No Return?
Iran: A 5-Minute, 5-Point Reaction to The Events of Ashura
Latest Iran Video: The Ashura Protests (27 December — 3rd Set)
Latest Iran Video: The Ashura Protests (27 December — 2nd Set)
Latest Iran Video: The Ashura Protests (27 December)
The Latest from Iran (27 December): The Day of Ashura

For the first time in 200 days, the Iranian people decided that enough was enough.

If the government was going to send goons, then they were going to deal with them the way goons are dealt with. We had seen burning homes, bleeding protesters and protesters being dragged across streets. This time around, we saw burning police cars, bleeding Basijis and riot police being dragged and beaten.

As a human rights activist and an admirer of Mahatma Gandhi, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela, I am strictly opposed to violence. What went on in Iran yesterday was anything but peaceful. Protesters fought back and they fought back hard. The level of violence against protesters may have been high, but it was answered. The response may not have been as violent as the assault of the security forces, but it was clearly expressed.

This prompted many of my friends and colleagues to question their support for the Green Movement. After all, we were expecting a non-violent revolution, one spurred by peaceful protests. But let us not forget. There is a difference between unprovoked acts of violence against individuals and self-defense. Did we really expect the Iranian people to just sit back and allow the government to kill, maim and arrest people ad infinitum? What would I or you do if someone used violence against us for six months over and over and over again? Are we going to go out and present ourselves as living targets for shooting practice? Or are we going to hang “Hit Me!” signs on our backs to make it easier for our attackers?

I won’t. The problem is that peaceful protests are great. However, they only really work when the opposing side is human enough to not use violence on such a massive scale. The protests in Iran in my opinion have been far from peaceful. It takes two hands to clap. How can we expect the government to repress people and at the same time not expect the people to fight back? This is what happens with bullies at schools. They only attack those who they think won’t fight back.

Next time the Basij, riot police, IRGC and plainclothesmen are out in Tehran during protests, they’ll know that their actions are going to be met with counter-measures. They’ll know that Iranians aren’t just sacks of wheat that they can pound on endlessly and mercilessly. If they fall into protesters’ hands, they should expect the worst.

Ashura’s protests in my opinion started a new phase in the revolution in Iran. The people are no longer going to sit back and watch as the government continues to not listen to their demands. They will come out and if they are attacked, there will be a crushing answer. The security forces can no longer use violence against protesters and then go back home to their children, enjoy a good meal, and make love to their women. They can no longer do that while bleeding protesters lay dying in hospitals, which will promptly transfer them to prisons where they will be locked in tiny holes for months on end.

The goons should know that in the future when they are out during a protest in Tehran, that if they attacked protesters, they will go home covered in their own blood and know how it feels. Because if they had felt it before, we wouldn’t have had to hear about Sohrab A’rabi’s body locked away in a morgue for weeks or see Neda Agha-Soltan’s dying eyes. I believe the Green Movement is still fully committed to non-violence, but yesterday they illustrated that their commitment extends to self-defense as well.

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