Aug 2, 2010

Doesn't quite say "extradition"


Life at 27


EIO - anything to be alarmed about?

29 July 2010

"Long a refusenik in the realm of European cooperation on justice and home affairs," Britain has opted in to negociations on the European Investigation Order (EIO), reports the EUobserver. UK home secretary Teresa May has hailed the controversial directive proposal, which gives foreign police forces the right to request that UK police search for and share evidence on suspects in Britain, as an "invaluable tool" in the fight against trans-border crime.

The Brussels based website notes that civil liberties groups are far from happy with the development, arguing that the current draft proposal does away with pre-existing arrangements based on territoriality and "dual criminality" – i.e. "that the act for which information is sought must constitute a crime punishable in both states."

The EUobserver explains that, "This would now mean that a person who committed an act which is legal in the member state where the act was carried out could, according to critics, be subject to body, house and business searches, financial investigations, and some forms of covert surveillance, if the act is regarded as a crime under the law of another member state."

According to Fair Trials International, "The proposals are also completely one-sided. If you are under suspicion you will have no right to demand information from overseas police to prove your innocence." The human rights charity predicts a Europe-wide scenario where inadequately protected citzens have sensitive personal information - such as recordings of bugged conversations, banking records and DNA – bandied around while national police are "powerless to refuse" information requests.

With the European Commission to give an opinion on the proposed directive in two months time, the EUobserver provides a provocative instance of how eventual legislation could be used. While Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany and 12 other EU countries, it does not constitute a crime in the UK, Sweden or Spain. "The EIO could thus in theory be used by Germany against someone who denied the Holocaust in a country where to do so is legal."




Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367

Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

Recent Activity:

Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.

Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests.

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.



TRUTH ABOVE ALL: Interview with Dr. Dariusz Ratajczak

Michael Santomauro @ 917-974-6367

What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?

Let's End Thought Crimes in the Twenty-first Century. -- to separate historical fact from propaganda…peace is patriotic!

Recent Activity:


Michel Chossudovsky: Preparing for World War III, Targeting Iran



Preparing for World War III, Targeting Iran

Part I: Global Warfare


By Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, August 1, 2010


Humanity is at a dangerous crossroads. War preparations to attack Iran are in "an advanced state of readiness". Hi tech weapons systems including nuclear warheads are fully deployed.

This military adventure has been on the Pentagon's drawing board since the mid-1990s. First Iraq, then Iran according to a declassified 1995 US Central Command document.

Escalation is part of the military agenda. While Iran, is the next target together with Syria and Lebanon, this strategic military deployment also threatens North Korea, China and Russia.

Since 2005, the US and its allies, including America's NATO partners and Israel, have been involved in the extensive deployment and stockpiling of advanced weapons systems. The air defense systems of the US, NATO member countries and Israel are fully integrated.

This is a coordinated endeavor of the Pentagon, NATO, Israel's Defense Force (IDF), with the active military involvement of several non-NATO partner countries including the frontline Arab states (members of NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative), Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea, India, Indonesia, Singapore, Australia, among others. (NATO consists of 28 NATO member states  Another 21 countries are members of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), The Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative include ten Arab countries plus Israel.)

The roles of Egypt, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia (within the extended military alliance) is of particular relevance. Egypt controls the transit of war ships and oil tankers through the Suez Canal. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States occupy the South Western coastlines of the Persian Gulf, the Straits of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman. In early June, "Egypt reportedly allowed one Israeli and eleven U.S. ships to pass through the Suez Canal in apparent signal to Iran. ... On June 12, regional press outlets reported that the Saudis had granted Israel the right to fly over its airspace..." (Muriel Mirak Weissbach,  Israel's Insane War on Iran Must Be Prevented., Global Research, July 31, 2010)

In post 9/11 military doctrine, this massive deployment of military hardware has been defined as part of the so-called  "Global War on Terrorism", targeting "non-State" terrorist organizations including al Qaeda and so-called "State sponsors of terrorism",. including Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan.

The setting up of new US military bases, the stockpiling of advanced weapons systems including tactical nuclear weapons, etc. were implemented as part of the pre-emptive defensive military doctrine under the umbrella of the "Global War on Terrorism".

War and the Economic Crisis

The broader implications of a US-NATO Israel attack on Iran are far-reaching. The war and the economic crisis are intimately related. The war economy is financed by Wall Street, which stands as the creditor of the US administration. The US weapons producers are the recipients of the US Department of Defense multibillion dollar procurement contracts for advanced weapons systems. In turn, "the battle for oil" in the Middle East and Central Asia directly serves the interests of the Anglo-American oil giants.

The US and its allies are "beating the drums of war" at the height of a Worldwide economic depression, not to mention the most serious environmental catastrophe in World history. In a bitter twist, one of the major players (BP) on the Middle East Central Asia geopolitical chessboard, formerly known as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, is the instigator of the ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

Media Disinformation

Public opinion, swayed by media hype is tacitly supportive, indifferent or ignorant as to the likely impacts of what is upheld as an ad hoc "punitive" operation directed against Iran's nuclear facilities rather than an all out war. War preparations include the deployment of of US and Israeli produced nuclear weapons. In this context, the devastating consequences of a nuclear war are either trivialised or simply not mentioned. The real crisis threatening humanity is not war but global warming. 

The war on Iran is presented to public opinion as an issue among others. It is not a threat to Mother Earth as in the case of global warming. It is not front-page news. The fact that an attack on Iran could lead to escalation and potentially unleash a "global war" is not a matter of concern. 

The Cult of Killing and Destruction

The global killing machine is also sustained by an imbedded cult of killing and destruction which pervades Hollywood movies, not to mention the prime time war and crime TV series. This cult of killing is endorsed by the CIA and the Pentagon which also support (finance) Hollywood productions as an instrument of war propaganda:

"Ex-CIA agent Bob Baer told us, "There's a symbiosis between the CIA and Hollywood" and revealed that former CIA director George Tenet is currently, "out in Hollywood, talking to studios." (Matthew Alford and Robbie Graham, Lights, Camera... Covert Action: The Deep Politics of Hollywood, Global Research, January 31, 2009).

The killing machine is deployed at a global level, within the framework of the unified combat command structure. It is routinely upheld by the institutions of government, the corporate media and the mandarins and intellectuals of the New World Orders from within Washington's think tanks and strategic studies research institutes, as an unquestioned instrument of peace and global prosperity.

A culture of killing and violence has become imbedded in human consciousness.

War is broadly accepted as part of a societal process: The Homeland needs to be "defended" and protected.

"Legitimized violence" and extrajudicial killings directed against "terrorists" are upheld in western democracies, as necessary instruments of "law and order".

A "humanitarian war" is upheld by the so-called international community. It is not condemned as a criminal act. Its main architects are rewarded for their contributions to world peace.

With regard to Iran, what is unfolding is the outright legitimization of war in the name of an illusive notion of global security.

A "Pre-emptive" Aerial attack directed against Iran would lead to Escalation

At present there are three separate Middle East Central Asia war theaters: Iraq, Af-Pak, and Palestine.

Were Iran to be the object of a "pre-emptive" aerial attack by allied forces, the entire region, from the Eastern Mediterranean to China's Western frontier with Afghanistan and Pakistan, would flare up, leading us potentially into a World War III scenario.
The war would also extend into Lebanon and Syria.

It is highly unlikely that the bombings, if they were to be implemented, would be circumscribed to Iran's Bushr nuclear facility as claimed by US-NATO official statements. What is more probable is an all out air attack on both military and civilian infrastructure, transport systems, factories, public buildings.

Iran, with an an estimated ten percent of global oil and gas reserves, ranks third after Saudi Arabia (25 %) and Iraq (11 %) in the size of its reserves. In comparison, the US possesses less than 2.8 % of global oil reserves. (See Eric Waddell, The Battle for Oil, Global Research, December 2004).

Of significance is the recent discovery in Iran of the second largest known reserves of natural gas at Soumar and Halgan estimated at 12.4 trillion cubic feet.

Targeting Iran consists not only in reclaiming Anglo-American control over Iran's oil and gas economy, including pipeline routes, it also challenges the presence and influence of China and Russia in the region.

Map of Middle East

The planned attack on Iran is part of a coordinated global military road map. It is part of the Pentagon's "long war",  a profit driven war without borders, a project of World domination, a sequence of military operations.

US-NATO military planners have envisaged various scenarios of military escalation. They are also acutely aware of the geopolitical implications, namely that the war could extend beyond the Middle East Central Asia region. The economic impacts on the oil markets, etc have also been analyzed. 

While Iran, Syria and Lebanon are the immediate targets, China, Russia, North Korea, not to mention Venezuela and Cuba are also the object of US threats.

At stake is the structure of military alliances. US-NATO-Israel military deployments including military exercises and drills conducted on Russia and China's immediate borders bear a direct relationship to the proposed war on Iran. These veiled threats, including their timing, constitute an obvious hint to the former powers of the Cold War era not to intervene in any way which could encroach upon a US-led attack on Iran.

Global Warfare

The medium term strategic objective is to target Iran and neutralize Iran's allies, through gunboat diplomacy. The longer term military objective is to directly target China and Russia.

While Iran is the immediate target, military deployment is by no means limited to the Middle East and Central Asia. A global military agenda has been formulated.

The deployment of coalition troops and advanced weapons systems by the US, NATO and its partners is occurring simultaneously in all major regions of the World. 

The recent actions of the US military off the coast of North Korea including the conduct of war games are part of a global design.

Directed primarily against Russia and China, US, NATO and allied military exercises, war drills, weapons deployments, etc. are being conducted simultaneously in major geopolitical hotspots.

-The Korean Peninsula, the Sea of Japan, the Taiwan Straits, the South China Sea threatening China,

-The deployment of Patriot missiles in Poland, the early warning center in the Czech republic threatening Russia,

-Naval deployments in Bulgaria, Romania on the Black sea,

- US and NATO troops deployments in Georgia,

- A formidable naval deployment in the Persian Gulf including Israeli submarines directed against Iran.

Concurrently the Eastern Mediterranean, the Black Sea, the Caribbean, Central America and the Andean region of South America are areas of ongoing militarization. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the threats are directed against Venezuela and Cuba. 

US "Military Aid"

In turn, large scale weapons transfers have been undertaken under the banner of US "military aid" to selected countries, including a 5 billion dollar arms deal with India which is intended to build India's capabilities directed against China. (Huge U.S.-India Arms Deal To Contain China, Global Times, July 13, 2010).

"[The] arms sales will improve ties between Washington and New Delhi, and, intentionally or not, will have the effect of containing China's influence in the region." quoted in Rick Rozoff, Confronting both China and Russia: U.S. Risks Military Clash With China In Yellow Sea, Global Research, July 16, 2010)

The US has military cooperation agreements with a number of South East Asian countries including Singapore, Vietnam and Indonesia, involving "military aid" as well as the participation in U.S.-led war games in the Pacific Rim (July -August 2010). These agreements are supportive of weapons deployments directed against The People's Republic of China. (See Rick Rozoff, Confronting both China and Russia: U.S. Risks Military Clash With China In Yellow Sea, Global Research, July 16, 2010).

Similarly and more directly related to the planned attack on Iran, the US is arming the Gulf States (Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates) with land-based interceptor missiles, Patriot Advanced Capability-3 and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) as well as sea-based Standard Missile-3 interceptors installed on Aegis class warships in the Persian Gulf. (See Rick Rozoff,  NATO's Role In The Military Encirclement Of Iran, Global Research, February 10, 2010).

The Timetable of Military Stockpiling and Deployment

What is crucial in regards to US weapons transfers to partner countries and allies is the actual timing of delivery and deployment. The launch of a US sponsored military operation would normally occur once these weapons systems are in place, effectively deployed with the implementation of personnel training. (e.g India).

What we are dealing with is a carefully coordinated global military design controlled by Pentagon, involving the combined armed forces of more than forty countries. This global multinational military deployment is by far the largest display of advanced weapons systems in World history. 

In turn, the US and its allies have established new military bases in different parts of the world.  "The Surface of the Earth is Structured as a Wide Battlefield". (See Jules Dufour, The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases , Global Research, July 1, 2007).

The Unified Command structure divided up into geographic Combatant Commands is predicated on a strategy of militarization at the global level. "The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries. In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide." (See Jules Dufour, The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases , Global Research, July 1, 2007


 Map-the World With Commander' Area of Responsibility

Source: DefenseLINK-Unified Command Plan

World War III Scenario

This military deployment is occurring in several regions simultaneously under the coordination of the regional Combatant Commands, involving the stockpiling of US made weapons systems by America's allies, some of which are former enemies, including Vietnam and Japan.

The present context is characterised by a a global military build-up characterised by one World superpower, which is using its numerous allies to trigger regional wars. In contrast to the Second World War was a conjunction of separate regional war theaters. Given the communications technologies and weapons systems of the 1940s, there was no strategic "real time" coordination in military actions between broad geographic regions

Global warfare is based on the coordinated deployment of a single dominant military power, which oversees the actions of its allies and partners.

With the exception of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Second World War was characterized by the use of conventional weapons. A contemporary global war is characterised by the militarization of outer space. It would not only use nuclear weapons, the entire gamut of new advanced weapons systems, including electrometric weapons and environmental modification techniques (ENMOD) would be unleashed.

The United Nations Security Council

The UN Security Council adopted in early June a fourth round of sweeping sanctions against The Islamic Republic of Iran, which included an expanded arms embargo as well "tougher financial controls". In a bitter irony, this resolution was passed within days of the United Nations Secrity Council's outright refusal to adopt a motion condemning Israel for its attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in international waters. 

Both China and Russia, pressured by the US, have endorsed the UNSC sanctions' regime, to their own detriment. Their decision within the UNSC contributes to weakening their own military alliance, the Shanghai  Cooperation organization (SCO), in which Iran has observer status. The Security Council resolution freezes China and Russia's respective bilateral military cooperation and trade agreements with Iran. It has serious repercussions on Iran's air defense system which in part depends on Russian technology and expertise.

The Security Council resolution grants a de facto "green light" to wage a pre-emptive war against Iran.

The American Inquisition: Building a Political Consensus for War

In chorus, the Western media has branded Iran as a threat to global security in view of its alleged (non-existent) nuclear weapons program. Echoing official statements, the media is now demanding the implementation of punitive bombings directed against Iran so as to safeguard Israel's security.

The Western media is beating the drums of war. The purpose is to tacitly instil, through repeated media reports, ad nauseam, within people's inner consciousness, that the Iranian threat is real and that the Islamic Republic should be "taken out".

A consensus building process to wage war is similar to the Spanish inquisition. It requires and demands submission to the notion that war is a humanitarian endeavor.

Known and documented, the real threat to global security emanates from the US-NATO-Israel alliance, yet realities in an inquisitorial environment are turned upside down: the warmongers are committed to peace, the victims of war are presented as the protagonists of war. Whereas in 2006, almost two thirds of Americans were opposed to military action against Iran, a recent Reuter-Zogby February 2010 poll suggests that 56 % of Americans favor a US-NATO military action against Iran. 

Building a political consensus which is based on an outright lie cannot, however, rely solely on the official position of those who are the source of the lie.

The antiwar movement in the US, which has in part been infiltrated and co-opted, has taken on a weak stance with regard to Iran. The antiwar movement is divided. The emphasis has been on wars which have already occurred (Afghanistan, Iraq) rather than forcefully opposing wars which are being prepared and which are currently on the Pentagon's drawing board. Since the inauguration of the Obama administration, the antiwar movement has lost some of its impetus.

Moreover, those who  actively oppose the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, do not necessarily oppose the conduct of "punitive bombings" directed Iran, nor do they categorize these bombings as an act of war, which could potentially be a prelude to World War III.

The scale of antiwar protest in relation to Iran has been minimal in comparison to the mass demonstrations which preceded the 2003 bombing and invasion of Iraq.

The real threat to global security emanates from the US-NATO-Israel alliance.

The Iran operation is not being opposed in the diplomatic arena by China and Russia; it has the support of the governments of the frontline Arab states which are integrated into the NATO sponsored Mediterranean dialogue. It also has the tacit support of Western public opinion.

We call upon people across the land, in America,  Western Europe, Israel, Turkey and around the world to rise up against this military project, against their governments which are supportive of military action against Iran, against the media which serves to camouflage the devastating implications of a war against Iran.

This war is sheer madness.

World War III is terminal. Albert Einstein understood the perils of nuclear war and the extinction of life on earth, which has already started with the radioactive contamination resulting from depleted uranium. " I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

The media, the intellectuals, the scientists and the politicians, in chorus, obfuscate the untold truth, namely that war using nuclear warheads destroys humanity, and that this complex process of gradual destruction has already commenced.

When the lie becomes the truth there is no turning backwards.

When war is upheld as a humanitarian endeavor, Justice and the entire international legal system are turned upside down: pacifism and the antiwar movement are criminalized. Opposing the war becomes a criminal act. 

The Lie must be exposed for what it is and what it does.

It sanctions the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children.

It destroys families and people.It destroys the commitment of people towards their fellow human beings.

It prevents people from expressing their solidarity for those who suffer. It upholds war and the police state as the sole avenue.

Breaking the lie means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force.

This profit driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies. 

Let us reverse the tide.

Challenge the war criminals in high office.

Break the American inquisition.

Undermine the US-NATO-Israel military crusade.

Close down the weapons factories and the military bases.

Bring home the troops. 

Members of the armed forces should disobey orders and refuse to participate in a criminal war. 

Part II of this essay will be published shortly.  

Preparing for World War III.  Nature and History of the Planned Military Operation against Iran

Includes analysis of the role if Israel


Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America's "War on Terrorism" (2005). He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages.





Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367

Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

Recent Activity:

Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests.

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.






Image 'Copyleft' by Carlos Latuff

NOT surprisingly, the ADL was one of the most vocal forces of opposition regarding the proposed building of a mosque at the site of Ground Zero....

Statement On Islamic Community Center Near Ground Zero

New York, NY, July 28, 2010 ... The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued the following statement regarding the proposed Islamic Center near Ground Zero in Manhattan:

We regard freedom of religion as a cornerstone of the American democracy, and that freedom must include the right of all Americans – Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other faiths – to build community centers and houses of worship.

We categorically reject appeals to bigotry on the basis of religion, and condemn those whose opposition to this proposed Islamic Center is a manifestation of such bigotry.

However..... and it's a BIG 'However' .... Read it HERE

The Mayor of New York (who happens to be Jewish) said the following regarding this matter;   "What is great about America, and particularly New York, is we welcome everybody, and if we are so afraid of something like this, what does that say about us?"

BUT.... does anyone care to see what Muslims themselves have to say about this type of defamation from groups like the Anti Defamation League?

The New York Times (of all sources) presented some very interesting viewpoints.....

THIS article, followed by a video present a side of Islam that Americans, in general, rarely see or read about....

GETTING TO KNOW THE UNKNOWN will break down many barriers that people themselves have built. Open your minds and hearts and see that for yourselves.

Add a comment to this post




Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367

Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

Recent Activity:





desertpeace | August 2, 2010 at 13:53 | Categories: Guest Post, Israel, Palestine | URL:

Sydney based Antony Loewenstein submitted the following today....

Wikileaks, Palestine, Australia and much in between

The biggest story of the last month has been the Wikileaks release of countless documents about the chaotic war in Afghanistan. It was a monumental effort that revealed the nature of the conflict and the failed attempts to either stabilise the country or embrace the Afghan people. I was asked to briefly comment about the significance of the leaks for Al-Jazeera English and what mainstream journalism could learn from Wikileaks; Media as provoker, not endorser of war.

In other news:

- 20 questions and answers from Australian online magazine New Matilda.

- Article in Australian online magazine Crikey about a recent visit to Australia by a leading IDF military lawyer.

- Exclusive article on my website about the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel and the Melbourne International Film Festival's welcoming of Israeli government funding.

- Review in the Sydney Morning Herald of the book My Friend the Mercenary.

- Short documentary about the recent Australian premiere of a documentary, American Radical, on Jewish writer Norman Finkelstein.

- Interview in the Australian online magazine The Scavenger on the concept of media bias and the importance of avoiding "objective" journalism.

- Event in Sydney with Palestinian activist Diana Buttu, screened on ABC TV.

- Interview on American independent channel GritTV with Palestinian writer Ali Abunimah.

- Interview with New York's Indypendent on the Middle East, journalism and web media.

- Article on American website Mondoweiss on a UN/New York Times event about Obama and the Muslim world.

- Report on New York's Revolutions Books event with fellow author Michael Otterman discussing Iraq and Palestine.

- Article in Australian online magazine Crikey about the uncontrolled privatisation agenda in Australia.

For daily news and views, see my website, Twitter feed and Facebook page.

Add a comment to this post

Recent Activity:


Here and there, the officials managed to close material on atrocities and some expulsions

The Chronicle of Higher Education

July 30, 2010, 12:05 PM ET

Will Israel's New Archive Policy Set Back a Generation of Scholarship?


Earlier this month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu extended the classification of certain national-security related state archives for an additional 20 years. Netanyahu's decision came on the heels of a three-year legal battle waged by two Israeli journalists, Ronen Bergman and Yossi Melman. In an editorial, the liberal newspaper Haaretz warned that Israel "can and must confront the less than heroic chapters in its past and reveal them to the public and for historical study. The public has a right to know about the decisions made by the state's founders, even if they involved violations of human rights, covering up crimes or harassing political opponents by security means."

For more on the potential implications of Netanyahu's decision, I turned to Benny Morris, a professor of history at Ben Gurion University of the Negev. Morris is the author of numerous books, including The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 (Cambridge University Press) and, most recently, One State, Two States: Resolving the Israel/Palestine Conflict (Yale University Press). Morris answered questions by e-mail from Washington, D.C., where he is currently visiting.

Q: What do you make of the decision to keep security-related documents classified?  
A: Every closure of documents, every extension of periods of classification, is against the spirit of an open society. But Israel does live in a particularly difficult environment—and is at war with its surroundings, so more than most societies, there is justification for a tight archival policy. But the truth is that Israel's archives remain among the most open in the world—far more open than Britain's and France's, and, in some respects, the United State's (for example, the Israeli Cabinet maintains verbatim transcripts of its meetings, and opens them—97 % of the material—to public scrutiny after 40 years. The US doesn't).

Q: Among the information that will remain classified are documents relating to Israel's treatment of Arabs during the 1948 War, a focus of your scholarship. Might this cache of classified files deepen or alter our understanding of that event? Or do you feel like the picture is already very clear?
A: Most of the material on 1948 is open, including treatment of Arabs\Arab communities. That's how I was able to write my books. Here and there, the officials managed to close material on atrocities and some expulsions. But other materials were opened and remain open—so it won't really affect scholarship on the subject. (Often one finds a specific document closed in one file and open in another—even in the IDF archive itself.)

Q: The opening up of the Israeli archives in the 1980s created an opportunity for you and other so-called New Historians to pursue groundbreaking research into Israel's past. Are you concerned that this recent decision will set back a generation of scholars?
A: What has been closed completely over the years, and now will remain closed for another 20 years, are the archives of the Mossad (foreign intelligence agency), Shin Bet (internal security service) and the Atomic Energy Commission and Israel's nuclear program and plants. This means that no one will be able to write and publish histories of these organizations. In France, these files are similarly closed amd in England too. But in England they recently—a major innovation—allowed an outsider (insider), Prof. Christopher Andrew, to see the material for MI5 and use it, but without specficifying document and file. MI6 remains completely closed (except for in-house historians, like with the Mossad, whose work is never published). In terms of Israeli historiography this means that the intelligence and nuclear aspects of its political and military history will remain black holes for another 20 years (at least).

Q: Will this decision provide ammunition to those who advocate an academic boycott against Israel?
A: No, this should have no effect on academic boycotters. If they hate Israel, as most do, they will continue to do so, and have no need of this excuse (the chief boycotters, of course, are Arabs—all of whose archives, if they exist, remain closed to all researchers, being authoritarian societies and regimes. They certainly have nothing to complain about. To them, by contrast, Israel is a wonderfully free and open society).

Q: What are you working on these days?
A: It's a secret. —Evan R. Goldstein