| HOME | Featured Stories | July 2010 Blog-Eds List | Background Information | News On the Web |
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers
NOTE: Links to Videos are at the bottom
of this page.
|
ISRAEL THE BEAUTIFUL: SUNSET ON THE MEDITERRANEAN
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, July 31, 2010. |
|
This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images. HOW I GOT THE SHOT: 
Summer sunsets on the Israeli side of the Mediterranean Sea are fairly predictable. On most days, an afternoon cloud bank hovers offshore and moments before the sun disappears below the horizon, rays of golden light pour through holes in the clouds.I had seen this performance often enough to know it was coming, but I needed a little bit of luck to get one of the boats into alignment with the sun at the critical moment. I was able to control this somewhat by changing my position along the shore. I've been asked many times to provide outtakes from my photo shoots, to bolster the written explanation to my process. For reasons of simplicity, I've avoided doing it until this week. Here are three shots from the series. The shot under the main photo, taken first, is a general shot upon arrival at the beach, when I began to pre-visualize the final image I wanted to capture: a silhouette of the boat with strong light in the sky and on the water. The lower shot taken closer to sunset shows how I was studying the main elements of the photo and waiting for them to come together at the right moment. The selected image combines the best light of the series in both the sky and on the water in the foreground, as well as a full profile of the boat as it bumps along the choppy water. TECHNICAL DATA: Nikon D300, 70-200 mm zoom @ 105 mm, f16 at 1/400 sec.
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
JEWS OF DISCOMFORT
Posted by Judea Pearl, July 31, 2010. |
|
What makes fog float in mid air, while raindrops fall straight down to earth? Physics teaches us that it is all a matter of "surface-to-weight ratio" — a simple parameter that determines whether soap bubbles rise or fall, and how many passengers a jet plane can carry. The larger the surface, so the theory goes, the easier it is for an object to lift its weight against gravitational pull. The analogy came to mind this past week, on Ti-sha B'Av, when I pondered the fate of the Jewish people and tried to assess our collective surface-to-weight ratio. It was a particularly cogent day to compare the amount of energy we spend at the boundaries of our existence, facing outward to defend our being, vis a vis the resources we waste facing inward, on self- congratulation, finger-pointing and other forms of added weight. Take the protest march on behalf of Gilad Shalit last month. Tens of thousands of Israelis took to the roads, tens of thousands stood by roadsides feeding the marchers, and millions watched the marchers on Israeli TV. I have not seen any of it on CNN, for it was aimed inwardly, toward the Israeli government. We would have surely seen some of it had this enormous energy been directed outwards, say as a protest against the UN or the Red Cross or foreign embassies for not doing their share in stopping the most blatant human rights violation of our generation. Or take Peter Beinart's much debated article "The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment" (New York Times Review of Books, June 10, 2010). Judging by the number of invitations I received to attend his lecture in Los Angeles, one would think that this creative intellectual has finally discovered a formula for peace or a new weapon to silence rockets without hurting civilians, or, at the very least, an Arab intellectual willing to accept Israel. None of the above. Reading his article again and again, all I hear is how uncomfortable he feels being a Jew at a time when Jews are accused of supporting a non-democratic entity called Israel, and how we can now extricate ourselves from this discomfort by speaking out, not against the distortions, but against a leadership that place their faith in the solid democratic character of Israeli society. I hear a desperate son coming home screaming: "Mother, the boys at school called you dirty names again. I hate you for causing me to face those bullies, and I hate you for making me feel so inadequate, unable to defend your honor except by joining them in amplifying your blemishes". Beinart was treated royally in Los Angeles because he is the prophetic voice for many Jews of Discomfort; they love him because he takes their discomfort and elevates it to a noble feeling of moral purity. They used to feel guilty for Israel's actions, still concsious of her problems, no more. Elevated in virtue, they now see every blemish on Israel's face as "the litmus test" for her impure personality — hers, not theirs. Observe another Jewish intellectual, the French philosopher Bernard Henry Levy, who is perhaps further to the left than Beinart. He too feels uncomfortable with some of Israel's actions, and he too proposed ways to correct them. Yet instead of pointing fingers at the Jewish establishment, he takes to the trenches and, using his column on the Huffington Post, he tells his leftist colleagues: Stop this madness, look at yourself in the mirror. Is your liberalism dead when it comes to Israel? (Jun 7, Huffingtonpost) It is all a matter of surface-to-weight ratio, says my physics book, Jews of spine confront their maligners, Jews of Discomfort blame their leaders. Deep inside, Levy knows perhaps that ours may well be the last generation in which Jews can earn respect in academic and intellectual circles; pro-coexistence scholars are already pariahs in academia, forced to hide their sentiments from colleagues. (See my column in this newspaper, "Our New Marranos," March 19, 2009), and if Israel goes under, Jews of Discomfort will certainly find themselves exorcised by the elite they now seek to appease. They would be remembered not for their discomfort, but for what they really were: members of a people who once supported a mistake called Israel — ruling elites do not easily forgive "mistakes" they labored to undo. I will end with a request to readers. If you agree with my views or share my concerns, do not simply succomb to the temptation of sending this article to another member of your synagogue. Take to the trenches and face outward. Knock on the door of your gentile neighbor or office mate and say: Remember, Joe, how I used to go along with all your sarcastic criticism of Israel? Times have changed, Joe. My people are in trouble, and there are things I must do even at the risk of testing our friendship. I want to tell you how strongly I feel about Israel, what is factual and what is malice in what you hear, and why our world will not be the same without that tiny, shining spot called Israel.
Judea Pearl is a professor at UCLA and president of the Daniel Pearl
Foundation, named after his son. He is a co-editor of "I am Jewish:
Personal Reflections Inspired by the Last Words of Daniel Pearl
(Jewish Light, 2004). Contact him by email at judea@CS.UCLA.EDU
|
|
THE BLOOD DIMMED TIDE
Posted by UCI, July 31, 2010. |
|
This was written by Rodger Parsons and it appeared July 26, 2010 in UCI. |
|
There's a rough beast slouching to be born. It's a wave of Islamic conquest that is spread out across the globe. The soft-core, politically correct liberal mentality of tolerance toward Islamists has become a disease of denial that allows the agents of militant Islam to masquerade as peaceful while acting to create a world in which only Islam rules. The moderate voices of Islam have been swept aside by strident violent theocrats, many wearing a pleasant facade designed to hide the truth. The rough beast plays with the western mind: taunting first with terror, then with the appearance of accommodation, then with a death threat for any perceived slight of Islam, then with a peace and freedom flotilla complete with al Qaeda terrorists armed to the teeth and bent on killing, always working assiduously toward the promulgation of Shariah Law. Anyone criticizing the infusion of Shariah Law into non-Islamic culture is criticized as being Islamophobic. But in the countries where Shariah governs, the climate is worse than Nazi Germany. See for yourself. Tenets of Shariah Law (From the Stop Shariah Now web site) Examples of Shariah Law include the following: (from the authoritative source Reliance of the Traveler, The Sacred Manual of Islamic Law.)
But an even more threatening trend in the works is Shariah-Compliant Finance. Financial institutions looking to bag some of the trillions of petrodollars have set up Shariah Compliance Boards, some of which have militant Islamists that have openly spoken of replacing the western system of finance with an Islamic model. "Leading Shariah authorities like Mufti Usmani, employed by Dow Jones and HSBC SCF funds, have called for violent jihad against the West. Usmani has even published a book in English explaining how and why this is obligatory for all Shariah-faithful Muslims." (Guilty Knowledge, Frank Gaffney, Jr.) The most dangerous aspect of this is the practice is known as zakat
(the tithing to charities required of observant Muslims with a
donation to the approved charities from the proceeds of the
investments that are not "tainted" by interest, speculation, pork or
other non-Shariah-compliant activities like the financing of
churches, the printing of bibles or the financing of many forms of
popular western entertainment). The difficulty is that some of this
"charity" finds it's way into the coffers of terrorist organizations
so that Shariah compliant finance can actually become a mechanism for
the material support of radical Islamic activates around the world.
The only way to stop this is to say no to Shariah, in any form, in
every democracy.
UCI — The Unity Coalition for Israel
(http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) — is "the largest worldwide
coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200
groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we
have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and
Secure Israel."
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: HEATING UP
Posted by Arlene Kushner, July 31, 2010. |
|
It's been fairly quiet on our border with Gaza, until the last couple of days. It was, of course, only a matter of time. It began on Friday morning when a Grad Katyusha rocket fired from Gaza hit central Ashkelon; thankfully there were no injuries but there was property damage and a number of people were treated for shock (which should not be minimized). We responded with an aerial attack on three different Hamas-connected sites in Gaza: a site where Hamas commandos were trained, a weapons manufacturing warehouse, and rocket-smuggling tunnel. Issa al-Batran, a commander in Hamas's Al-Kassam Brigades, was killed in one of the strikes and eight others were wounded. ~~~~~~~~~~ Hours after the Grad was launched, two mortars landed in the Eshkol Regional Council (which lies roughly south of Ashkelon). Then tonight, a Kassam hit an educational institution, outside of Sderot, in the Shaar HaNegev Regional Council. ~~~~~~~~~~ Whether this is the beginning of a sustained series of attacks, or will abate, it is too soon to say. Some analysts are connecting this to the prospect of direct talks between Israel and the PA — that is, an attempt to derail this by stirring up matters. ~~~~~~~~~~ Speaking of those direct talks, news has just broken of a letter that was sent to Abbas by Obama two weeks ago, in which he said, "it is high time to resume direct negotiations with Israel" as Netanyahu "is ready to resume direct negotiations." According to a PA official, the letter said that, "Obama will absolutely not accept the rejection of his recommendation to move to direct negotiations and that there will be consequences for such a rejection in the form of a lack of trust in President Abbas and the Palestinian side." Obama promised that he would work to extend an Israeli freeze on building in Jewish settlements due to expire in September if Abbas resumed direct negotiations. "But in case of a refusal its assistance on that issue will be very limited." PA negotiator Saeb Erekat confirmed the existence of this letter to AFP (Agence France Presse). ~~~~~~~~~~ There are several points of interest with regard to this letter. It was, you will note, sent before the Arab League meeting this past week, and may have had something to do with the response of the foreign ministers at that meeting with regard to (ambiguously) signing on for direct talks. But what has not happened is that Abbas himself was so intimidated by Obama's threats that he jumped to come to the table. There are other things that are frightening him a good deal more, I would say. What is more, if this report is accurate, it does indicate that Netanyahu has not caved with regard to extending the freeze. Although it tells us (as we have already guessed) that there will be huge pressure on him to do so, should Abbas cave in the end and come to the table. ~~~~~~~~~~ Of course (and also no surprise whatsoever), UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon is pumping for a freeze extension. The subject came up when Defense Minister Ehud Barak met with him on Friday. Said Barak to Ban: "We are hoping to start direct negotiations with the Palestinians soon, in order to move forward with an agreement which will be based on two nations for two peoples. The negotiations will not be simple, and courageous decisions will be required on our part and the Palestinians...We will need the help of the UN to go forward with the negotiations." This man needs to be muzzled! Bad enough to speak about the "courageous decisions" we have to make (= going back to the '67 lines), but for him to seek UN "help," with the UN's anti-Israel reputation? We are our own worst enemies. Barak should hang his head in shame. But then, the evidence of the past is that he's shameless. ~~~~~~~~~~ Barak then went into what might be seen as a comedy routine, if it were not so serious. He told Ban that the UN must act to prevent weapons smuggling by Hezbollah and to implement Resolution 1701. Come on! There will be no implementation of that resolution, and it's rather after the fact anyway. Under the nose of UN troops Hezbollah has already re-armed to a strength greater than it had before the Second Lebanon war. ~~~~~~~~~~ Meanwhile, that fine upstanding UN Human Rights Council — which devotes more time and energy to investigating Israeli human rights "violations" than all of the other human rights violations in the world — is going to investigate the flotilla incident. Word from our prime minister's office is that we are not likely to cooperate. I would hope not. Not only is the mandate stacked against us, but UN war crimes prosecutor Desmond de Silva, who has been chosen to head the panel, spoke against our actions before his appointment. At the same time, Ban is pumping for yet another UN investigation. ~~~~~~~~~~ Please see and broadly share "Hypocrisy's finest hour," by Shaul Rosenfeld. Rosenfeld exposes the world's hypocrisy when it comes to criticism of Israel: "...during Operation Just Cause in December 1989, US troops in Panama killed 300 to 1,000 civilians...in October 1993, a UN force (mostly comprising US units) killed more than 500 Somali civilians, while 'carrying out an operation,' of course. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
BIAS OR LAWFARE, OVER LONDON BUS?; TALIBAN OPPRESSING AFGHAN WOMEN, AGAIN
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 31, 2010. |
|
FOX NEWS ALLEGES ISRAELI LAND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST JERUSALEM ARABS Fox News' Jerusalem correspondent Reena Ninan repeatedly aired an anti-Zionist NGO's unverified claim that Israel discriminates in land sales against Arabs in Jerusalem. The Israeli NGO, Ir Amim, had a study alleging that 79% of the land in Jerusalem is earmarked by the Israel Land Authority for Jews and cannot be purchased by Arabs. When one boils down the claim's complex circumstances, little is left. In the U.S., much of the desert is owned by the government. Same in Israel. In addition, Israel started as a socialist state, with more land under government control. [In addition, the Jewish National Fund spent Jewish communal funds buying land for Jews. The Turkish Empire left behind a system under which much of the land was state-owned.] Israelis talk about buying land, but mostly they get it on 49-year leases. It works this way: (1) Israel Land Authority (ILA) property may be leased to Israeli citizens, including Arabs, and to foreign Jews. Arabs in eastern Jerusalem mostly are non-citizen residents; but (2) ILA regulations state that for purposes of leasing, residents are not considered foreigners. Therefore, Arabs in eastern Jerusalem may lease land there; (3) Where there is a conflict between the lease and the regulations, the lease-holder wishing to sell his house may choose to follow the regulations, which are the more liberal. Actually, the Ir Amim report admitted that Jerusalem resident Arabs could buy land: "On the other hand, despite the restrictions cited in the ILA leasing contract, they are not always actually enforced and in many cases the Palestinian buyer's blue identity card is sufficient to close the deal, without his status as a resident, rather than citizen, being investigated and posing an obstacle to the process. But even when such a transaction is completed, the danger of cancellation will always hover over it, because [of] article 19 of the ILA leasing contract ... (page 7). The NGO did not identify any Arab residents barred from leasing ILA land (CAMERA, 7/30/10)
NEW YORK, BRITAIN, AND MUSLIMS PREPARE FOR RAMADAN 
The Middle East Forum examines controversial public authorities' preparation for Ramadan in the U.S. and Britain, coming in a few days. Do those preparations follow the principle of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which "stipulates that 'employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship' on either the employers or other workers?" New York City will patrol mosques more, on Ramadan, in anticipation of hate crimes. Legitimate threats require safety measures. However, as terrorism expert Robert Spencer notes, Islamist groups have exaggerated hate crimes against Muslims, in order to present their faith as victim. Recently, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) suggested that a mosque in Georgia was torched because of anti-Muslim bias. Police later arrested a Muslim for it. What about Jewish and Christian holidays, which occasion many jihadist attacks? Do police increase patrols then, too? [I followed up with NYPD on 7/31. It does intend to increase patrols during other religions' holy days.] In 2007, the increasingly radical Muslim Council of Britain issued an Islamist document advising state schools how to meet the needs of Muslims pupils. The city council of Stoke-on-Trent in Staffordshire, England copied from that document to advise its schools about Muslims pupils who fast during the days of Ramadan. The advice is to ban swimming lessons for all, lest Muslims swallow water. Ban sex education for all, lest Muslims have sexual thoughts. Reschedule tests, which may be too difficult for hungry Muslim students. Prepare a bigger area for daily prayers. Do not have parent-school meetings in the evening, because Muslims are busy. "Build on this spirit" through "collective worship." The advice goes too far. It disadvantages all students so as not to let Muslims feel disadvantaged. It forces all students to observe Islamic law (David J. Rusin, 7/30/10, with links to support the statements). The author did not oppose considerately accommodating the minority but discommoding the majority. He did not oppose enhancing freedom of religion for the minority but partially imposing that religion on the majority. (This story is within an unstated context, described in other articles of mine over the past year, about Islam having a program of gradual encroachment in, and overturning of, non-Islamic areas.)
UN REJECTS HIZBULLAH CRITICISM ON TRYING ASSASSINS 
The UN has rejected Hizbullah criticism of its plan to try suspects for the assassination of Lebanon's former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri [whose son is the current Prime Minister]. The UN is expected to try members of Hizbullah. The UN expressed faith in the impartiality of international tribunals. Hizbullah accused the UN of political motives for having a trial. Hizbullah head Sheik Nasrallah called the investigation and proposed trial an "Israeli project" (IMRA, 7/30/10 from Egyptian Gazette). Interesting hypothesis that the Hizbullah chieftain accuses the UN, which devotes half its efforts against Israel, of following Israeli direction. It also is interesting that at first, some people supposed that Israel had ordered the assassination of the leader who sought to free Lebanon from domination by Syria, Hizbullah, and Iran. What credibility does that blame-laying leave Hizbullah? For many people, if the accusations are anti-Israel, they accept them, regardless of who makes them and how flimsy. They are not interested in truth but in an excuse for Israel-bashing. Victor Davis Hanson demonstrates that point by citing the many, significant, and truthful occurrences of contemporary antisemitism in Turkey, occupation, slaughter of innocent people, refugees, border disputes, "disproportionate" retaliation, and fascism. Why the obsession with Israel, coupled with unconcern about others? As a substitute for bald antisemitism (Summer 2010, A31 from National ReviewOnline, 6/11/10).
BIAS OR LAWFARE, OVER LONDON BUS? Two Muslim women students claim to have been ejected from a London bus by a "bigoted" driver who objected to their wearing head scarves. They have retained lawyers. The Muslim Council of Britain immediately expressed deep concern. Metroline reviewed video footage of the incident. The video shows the women forcing their way onto a bus that was out of service. There were argumentative and even abusive. Metroline rejected the women's complaint. The video was not accompanied by a sound track, which would disclose the words used. The Londonist is saddened by the students' exaggerating a minor disagreement into a bias incident ripe for lawsuit, and their eagerness to accuse the driver of bigotry and to speak to the BBC about it, hints at ulterior motive. The author explains that seemingly minor disagreements become predatory lawsuits, whose costs and efforts may intimidate the prey into making settlements despite innocence (Nathaniel Sugarman, Middle East Forum, 7/30/10 Predatory lawsuits and the threat of lodging them by prosecutors such as New York State Attorney Generals Spitzer and Cuomo, abuse the use of courts. Courts are intended for redress of grievances, not for causing grievances. It is becoming a major drag on the economy. We have documented the use of London courts to intimidate authors and publishers. About a year ago, we related the story of a group of Muslim men who boarded an airliner in the Midwest, arrayed themselves in the same seating as had the 9/11 hijackers, were loud and abusive and drew attention to their being Muslims and Arabs, and were ordered off the plane. Later they claimed discrimination, and sought to use their case to find out which passenger had complained to the crew. In effect, they ambushed the airline. It was thought that they sought to sue the passenger and intimidate Americans otherwise alert to prospective terrorist hijacking. The cry of discrimination can be as false as the accusations by fired employees of bias, who were not told anything bigoted but who immediately ask their lawyers whether they can ground a case on race, religion, gender, or age, whatever might work, however false. We all know of employees who, when warned about poor work performance, threaten to bring suit for discrimination, if disciplined.
WHICH CONTINUES, GAZA WAR OR CEASEFIRE? From Gaza, an advanced rocket, probably smuggled in, was fired into the Israeli city of Ashkelon, 10 kilometers away. It caused property damage. Previous rockets that landed there caused casualties. In retaliation, Israeli planes struck at three different parts of the Gaza strip, hitting an arms smuggling tunnel, a weapons warehouse, and a site of "terror activity." Since the end of the Israeli incursion into Gaza, Arabs have fired more than 400 rockets into Israel (IMRA, 7/31/10). The New York Times calls those Arab attacks "broadly upholding a shaky ceasefire." UN Middle East envoy spokesman Richard Miron declared that "indiscriminate rocket fire against civilians is completely unacceptable, and constitutes a terrorist attack." (Isabel Kershner, 7/31/10, A9). Perhaps those who are wounded or whose houses are wrecked by rockets whose capability Hamas keeps developing may not agree that those hundreds of rockets upholds the ceasefire. The UN urges Israel to put its faith in the "international community," and the U.S. urges Israel to rely upon "international guarantees." Before the Gaza War, Hamas and associates fired thousands of rockets into Israel, while Israel waited for the UN to condemn Hamas. Finally, the people of Israel demanded that their government protect them. After it did, the UN Goldstone mission condemned Israel and barely raised a sweat over the years of Hamas terrorism
ADL COMES OUT AGAINST NEW YORK MEGA-MOSQUE 
Mayor approved mosque without investigating (A.P./Henry Ray Abrams) The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has come out in opposition to building a mega-mosque near Ground Zero. ADL national director thinks that is the wrong place for it. Polls show that most Americans agree. Proponents reacted angrily, demanding that people "show tolerance" by welcoming the Muslim center. Mayor Bloomberg said that Americans and New Yorker welcome everybody. Sarah Palin demanded that moderate Muslims show tolerance by rejecting the Muslim center. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that most Americans consider the proposal political rather than religious and as an offensive and aggressive act. The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership promotes inter-faith dialog. He called the proposed mosque's imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf moderate. The Center's programming director, Oz Sultan, said the center's Board would include Christians and Jews and become the model for moderate Islam, and would "build bridges" to other faiths. He defended the site as being where Muslims also were killed (Michael Barbaro, NY Times, 7/31/10, A1). Does one build bridges by burning one's bridges to the victims? The statement that Muslims died there is not relevant — Muslims are major victims of terrorism by radical Muslims. How much have mega-mosque proponents. other than those who proposed it, investigated the project financing and studied the history and ideology of Islam? Are they aware of the Muslim principle of permissible deception in behalf of the faith? Does the Mayor realize how Islam uses such edifices as monuments to victory? Is the imam moderate? Some time ago, I reported on interfaith dialogs that displayed attempts not to reconcile but to defame or to impose. Some people are native, in assuming that leaders of other faiths necessarily will be reasonable and not fanatical.
TALIBAN OPPRESSING AFGHAN WOMEN, AGAIN 
Traditionally, Afghan men kept their women as a sort of household furniture. The Taliban smothered women's lives even more [as by keeping them from becoming medical practitioners and denying them medical care from male doctors.] Women died in the name of the extremists' value of "modesty" and removing sexual temptation. When the Northern Alliance and the U.S. helped liberate Afghanistan, women resumed schooling, working outside of the home, and dressing more comfortably and with individuality. Now the Taliban are regaining power and intimidate areas nominally outside their control. Between the Taliban resurgence, and President Obama's plan to "de-surge" our troops there, Afghan women dread their future. They note that their government negotiates with Taliban, but does not demand women's rights. The females increasingly refrain from going out to school. They fear being attacked by Taliban, supposedly proponents of preserving feminine purity. Women who work or teach women to work have been murdered for it. Women are being squeezed back into the confines of the homes. Many women are marrying hastily, as they or their parents seek to preclude their marrying Taliban men. In the non-Taliban North, the Tajik region, women enjoy more schooling and freedom (Alissa J. Rubin, NY Times, 7/31/10, A1). For Afghan women, their country is becoming a big prison. More woman are or will be oppressed there than the whole Arab population of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), while some "humanitarians" claim that Israel has made Gaza a prison. How come the humanitarians show little concern about the female Afghan millions? How come the humanitarians show little concern about the P.A. oppression of its own people and its war on Israel that requires security measures such as embargo? Readers have sent in comments accusing Israel in general terms, without evidence.
YOUNG GERMANS RADICALIZING MORE The numbers of known radicalized Muslim youth in Germany still is not large. However, it is growing. Terrorist recruiters have become more effective and more intent on Germany. Now they send out Internet messages in German. Sometimes, whole young families set off for Muslim areas, to assist jihad. Among them are converts. These new jihadists are told to bring their savings, to finance themselves and to help finance the militias. German authorities fear that some return in order to recruit more or to commit terrorism in Germany. Left behind are parents who purport to be moderate and who profess shock at what happened. They hope their children will communicate with them and will return. Often, the young people are not heard from again (Souad Mekhennet, NY Times, 7/31/10, A4). Germany treats radical Islam as a religion, entitled to free
expression, but it is more a war society, a society making war on
Germany, among many places. Embattled European police have good
detectives. What preventive measures will Europe adopt?
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
CLUELESS ABOUT GAZA
Posted by Mark Silverberg, July 30, 2010. |
|
The U.S. debt will top $13.6 trillion this year and climb to an estimated $19.6 trillion by 2015, according to a Treasury Department report to Congress. Bankruptcy filings are nearing the record two million level of 2005 and unemployment is nearly 10%, yet, in mid-June, President Obama pledged a $400M aid package for supposed housing, schools, water and health care system projects in the West Bank and Hamas-ruled Gaza. He described these projects as a "down payment on the U.S. commitment to the people of Gaza who deserve a chance to take part in building a viable, independent state of Palestine, together with those who live in the West Bank." He must have forgotten that the Gazans first act of "independence" after the Israeli withdrawal from the territory in 2005 was to destroy the lucrative greenhouse industry that the Israelis left behind, but that should have served as a reminder of the billions in aid that have been squandered in pursuit of this pipedream. According to the Heritage Foundation, since the 1993 Oslo Accords, the U.S. has showered $2.2 billion in bilateral aid on the Palestinians, in addition to more than $3.4 billion for humanitarian aid funneled through dysfunctional U.N. organizations since 1950 — and yet, they are still considered "refugees". That's because vast amounts of these aid funds have been diverted to allow terrorist organizations like Hamas to focus on building its war infrastructure such as bunkers, fortifying positions and digging tunnels, rather than on subsidizing education, paving roads, promoting commerce and industry, or providing for and advancing the long-term interests of their people. Should Congress approve this aid package, it will only serve to stabilize the Hamas regime, assist in consolidating its power, and inhibit the development of the social, political and economic infrastructures necessary to build a viable, unified and stable Palestinian state. Hamas's desire for more construction materials has more to do with rebuilding and strengthening its war machine against Israel than the needs of ordinary Gazans so it's fair to ask this administration: "Where's the strategic logic behind this pledge?" Money is fungible, so where are the assurances and accountability mechanisms necessary to insure that this money will not be spent on terrorism and missiles as has occurred in the past? Consider the nature of the regime that controls Gaza. In the wake of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 which saw Israel expel and uproot 8,800 people from 25 communities and destroy its 26 synagogues, hundreds of businesses and 35 years of accomplishments, Hamas seized power from the Palestinian Authority in a bloody coup in June 2007 and, true to its roots as the ideological cousin of al Qaeda, and an offshoot of the extremist Egyptian Moslem Brotherhood, it fired over 7,500 missiles into southern Israeli cities and towns in the name of "resistance", declared its intention to annihilate the Jewish state, established "summer camps" for over a hundred thousand children to learn the Koran, paramilitary training, hatred of Jews, and the glories of "martyrdom", holds its population hostage, uses children as human shields and mosques, schools and UN facilities as weapons depots in violation of international law, proudly proclaims that its members cherish "death over life", has denied abducted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit his fundamental rights under international law for four years, has diverted millions in humanitarian aid and supplies through UNRWA and other NGOs to maintain its war infrastructure in violation of 301c of the Foreign Assistance Act, inserted its "morality police" into the daily lives of Gazans, and introduced an extremist Islamic "statelet" on Israel's southern border that serves as a base of operations for Iran — an enemy that has made no secret of its regional ambitions and nuclear aspirations. Emboldened by recent moral support from states such as NATO member Turkey, Hamas' confidence appears only to be growing. It shows no sign of budging on the principles that have caused its international isolation. So, in making this undertaking and forcing Israel to ease its Gaza blockade, the Obama administration has confirmed that Gaza will remain firmly under Hamas control. It will not recognize Israel, renounce violence or support any peace agreement signed by its Palestinian rivals. In one stroke, he has rendered meaningless both the Oslo Accords and the conditions set by the Quartet — namely, the abandonment of terrorism, accepting Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, and recognition of the Palestinian Authority's rule as the legitimate government. The problem with his strategy (if that's what it is) is that it fails to consider the nature of the Hamas regime and the broader implications that arise from empowering a genocidal, virulently anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-democratic, repressive, pro-Iranian organization on the southern border of our most reliable ally in the Middle East. Some $10B has been spent globally in the last decade on the Palestinians making them the largest per capita recipients of foreign aid in the world (with the exception of the Republic of Congo), yet places like Gaza remain as pro-terrorist as ever. Billions of dollars that are meant for schools, hospitals and infrastructure have been spent on luxury villas, casinos and payments to terrorists. Furthermore, since Hamas is a designated foreign terrorist organization (FTO) that controls the distribution of all goods entering Gaza, providing humanitarian aid through non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Gaza may now constitute a violation of the "material support" provisions of the Patriot Act since such aid (according to the recent Supreme Court decision in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project) would "free up" other resources for Hamas to put towards its genocidal goals. It would also add legitimacy to its attempts to recruit and raise additional funds to further those objectives. By sustaining Hamas in power, this aid package may not only be illegal, but will undermine any future ability the Palestinian national movement may have of reaching a compromise with Israel. More disturbing is the recent leak from a senior Hamas official to the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper suggesting that this pledge of aid to Gaza is the forerunner to an even more dangerous planned Obama initiative in the coming months — one that would remove Hamas from America's designated foreign terrorist organization (FTO) list. On June 16th, a Washington-based Arabic newspaper quoted a senior official as saying that an American envoy is scheduled to meet with Hamas representatives in an Arab country and hand them a letter from the Obama administration. According to the report, Obama believes (wrongly) that he has no choice other than to deal with Hamas due to its influence in the Arab and Islamic world. Given that Obama's 'go-to guy' on issues of intelligence, John Brennan, has been reaching out to 'moderates' in Hezbollah, it would hardly be surprising to believe that the Administration is now talking to Hamas. And apparently, Obama isn't alone in this belief. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) seems to have bought into it as well. Mark Perry, writing in Foreign Policy (June 30th) notes: "While it is anathema to broach the subject of engaging militant groups like Hezbollah and Hamas in official Washington circles (to say nothing of Israel), in a "Red Team" report issued on May 7th and entitled "Managing Hezbollah and Hamas", senior CENTCOM intelligence officers question the current U.S. policy of isolating and marginalizing the two movements." The Report notes that while Hezbollah and Hamas "embrace staunch anti-Israel rejectionist policies", the two organizations are "pragmatic and opportunistic." This contradicts Israel's position that these two extremist Islamist organizations cannot change their raison d'être and must be confronted with force. However, the Report suggests that "failing to recognize their separate grievances and objectives will result in continued failure in moderating their behavior." One senior officer even commented in private discussions: "Putting Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda in the same sentence, as if they are all the same, is just stupid." Good grief. What's "stupid" is that CENTCOM fails to see the reality that all these particular Islamist terrorist organizations are the same in at least one respect: They all share a commitment to and common interpretation of Sharia, and as such, they are all pursuing the same objective — the global triumph of Shariah under a theocratic Caliphate. While their tactics may differ, they are united in their common goal. When Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Zahhar proclaims (as he did on Future News TV on June 15, 2010 according to MEMRI): "This is our plan for this stage — to liberate the West Bank and Gaza, without recognizing Israel's right to a single inch of land ... without giving up the Right of Return for a single Palestinian refugee ... to liberate any inch of Palestinian land, to establish a state on it and ... [to have] Palestine in its entirety ... We will not recognize the Israeli enemy"... it's rather difficult to believe that deep down inside, this man is really a "moderate" who is "pragmatic and opportunistic". These are people professing a powerful ideology rooted in a radical interpretation of Islam, in whose name they propagandize, proselytize, terrorize and kill. The one thing that unites them is the jihadist vision in whose name they act. When these groups see Americans bending over backwards to justify flexibility toward militant Islamists, they assume, rightly, that their political strategy is working. You can pet these scorpions all you want, but you cannot change their fundamental nature. According to Perry: "The report argues that an Israeli decision to lift the siege might pave the way for reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, which would be "the best hope for mainstreaming Hamas" as though the object of U.S. policy should be to facilitate Hamas' takeover of the West Bank as well as Gaza. Hamas will only integrate into the Palestinian security forces once it is sure that it won't be obliged to surrender its freedom of military action. And even more instructive is the following line: "The Red Team also claims that reconciliation with Fatah, when coupled with Hamas's explicit renunciation of violence, would gain widespread international support and deprive the Israelis of any legitimate justification to continue settlement building and delay statehood negotiations." By attributing ill-will on the part of Israel, that statement suggests that the Red Team's real agenda includes the delegitimization of Israel. Perry concludes that the report reflects the thinking among a significant number of senior officers at CENTCOM headquarters and among senior CENTCOM intelligence officers and analysts serving in the Middle East. The Administration's "soft power" team seems to feel that since engagement with Islamist groups failed with Iran and Syria, it should keep trying it with Hezbollah and Hamas based on the assumption that dialogue with Islamists can resolve most issues. Einstein would have called that insanity. In the end, if this is the paradigm of this Administration and CENTCOM — that radical Islamist organizations can be house-trained — they will be opening Pandora's Box. Recognizing Hamas, as CENTCOM and the Obama administration seem poised to do, would be a colossal blunder that will have major ramifications for American interests and American credibility in the Middle East for years to come, and provide Iran with its long sought after base within missile range of Tel Aviv. These types of actions are destructive to our efforts to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, and to the American people, who have the right to expect their leaders to adopt realistic policies against those who threaten our way of life, our global interests, our security, and our allies.
Mark Silverberg is a foreign policy analyst for the Ariel Center for Policy
Research (Israel) and the author of "The Quartermasters of Terror: Saudi
Arabia and the Global Islamic Jihad". His articles have been archived under
www.marksilverberg.com and www.analyst-network.com
|
|
LEBANON ROILED OVER PALESTINIANS
Posted by M.S. Kramer, July 30, 2010. |
|
Druze Lebanese leader, Walid Jumblatt, recently created an uproar over the 400,00 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Jumblatt's father, who once led the Druze, was assassinated in 1977. The Druze are a group of non-Arab Muslims, whose sect is considered heretical by many other Muslims. Their origins date back to the 10th century and they comprise about 10% of the Lebanese population. The remainder of the Lebanese population is mostly Arab Muslim or Arab Christian. (Lebanon was once predominantly Christian. Many Christian Lebanese do not identify themselves as Arab, but prefer to be known as descendants of the ancient Canaanites and call themselves "Phoenicians".) Jumblatt, who heads the Progressive Socialist Party, recently questioned why Palestinian refugees are forbidden to own property in Lebanon. Jumblatt spoke to a group of Palestinian refugees from across Lebanon, who visited him in his residence in the village of Mukhtara. He said, "We allow other Arabs to own properties, arguing that this would encourage foreign investments, but we deprive poor Palestinians from [this right]." The MP said he insisted on granting Palestinian refugees labor rights, social security and property rights. This rhetoric is diametrically opposed to the constant strategy of the Palestinians: keeping their millions of so-called refugees in a wretched state to gain the world's sympathy for the Palestinian cause, while delegitimizing Israel's right to exist. Significantly, Jumblatt added that Prime Minister Saad Hariri and Speaker Nabih Berri were exerting efforts in the same direction. In June, Jumblatt's parliamentary bloc submitted a draft law to grant Palestinian refugees their rights, sparking a huge debate in the Parliament. The proposal is currently being examined by parliamentary committees. (reported on July 4 in the Daily Star newspaper, Beirut) Omar al-Issawi, a Lebanese journalist, director, producer, and television personality, wrote extensively on the refugees on the (English) Al Jazeera website in 2009: "There are thousands of Palestinian refugees across the globe, many of whom settled in neighboring Arab countries including Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. However, of all the Palestinian refugees in the Arab world, it is those who have taken shelter in Lebanon who have suffered the most. "According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the international body set up to ensure the welfare of Palestinian refugees, the highest percentage of Palestinian refugees who are living in abject poverty reside in Lebanon. There are about 400,000 officially registered Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, or approximately 10 per cent of the population. Just under half of the refugees continue to live in camps. While those Palestinians resident in Syria and Jordan, for example, do not enjoy the benefits of full citizenship, they do have access to education, healthcare and employment. [Jordan has lately de-naturalized thousands of its Palestinian citizens, who are the majority of Jordan's population. They live under a regime most accurately described as "apartheid", according to Mudar Zahran in the Jerusalem Post, July 24.] "Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, Palestinian refugee camps were under stringent Lebanese security control. For instance, travel from one camp to another was restricted and even reading newspapers in public was banned. Today, Palestinians in Lebanon continue to suffer from draconian measures which the Lebanese state claims are there to prevent them from becoming permanent guests. "As recently as 2005, Palestinian refugees were banned from taking up employment in 70 professions. Today, the number of restricted professions stands at 20 and includes senior medical, legal and engineering careers. While these restrictions were recently eased, applicants must have a valid work permit and membership in the appropriate professional representative body. Both are beyond the financial means of most Palestinian refugees. "A major bone of contention for Lebanese nationals has been the fact that armed Palestinian groups continue to thrive in the refugee camps. When the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was based in Lebanon between 1972 and 1982, it threw its lot behind the Muslim-dominated leftist forces that were engaged in civil war against the Christian-led right. [There were up to a quarter of a million fatalities during this period and one-fourth of the population were wounded.] "In 1976, Lebanese Christian militiamen overran the Tal al-Zaatar refugee camp in East Beirut and massacred or expelled all of its residents. In 1982, Israeli forces facilitated the entry of Lebanese Christian militiamen into the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in West Beirut. That massacre claimed the lives of about 800 residents of the camps. "Between 1985 and 1989, Lebanon was the scene of what became known as the Camps War, when Pro-Syrian militiamen from Amal, a Lebanese Shia movement, and anti-Arafat factions laid siege to Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut and the South. Palestinian refugees suffered grim atrocities, and according to journalist Robert Fisk, the Camps War was worse than the Sabra and Shatila massacre. "Many Lebanese believe the presence of armed Palestinians on Lebanese soil is a potential flashpoint and point to the clashes at the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in Northern Lebanon as a case in point. Between May and September of 2007, Nahr al-Bared was the scene of a brutal conflict between the radical Fatah al-Islam group and the Lebanese army. [At least 446 people, including 168 soldiers and 226 militants, were killed.]"
As Walid Jumblatt's remarks indicate, the future of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon will be among the first items on the agenda of Lebanon's new parliament. In my opinion, this is revolutionary! Only one Arab country, Jordan, has allowed Palestinian refugees to become citizens and their rights there are circumscribed. Lebanon may open the door to begin integrating its refugees, after 60-plus years of segregation. This flies in the face of the usual Arab insistence that the Palestinians must be returned to their "homeland" in Israel. If this is a serious initiative, the "uprooted Palestinians" movement may be challenged by a parallel movement to assimilate the millions of Palestinian "refugees" scattered throughout the Arab world.
Steve Kramer lives in Alfe Menashe. He has written a weekly opinion column for the Jewish Times of southern New Jersey (www.jewishtimes-sj.com) for the last ten years. He writes, "They're about history, politics, touring, or whatever excites me." He is author of "Encountering Israel — Geography, History, Culture." |
|
DELUSION VERSUS SOLUTION
Posted by Yoram Ettinger, July 30, 2010. |
|
Your comments and constructive criticism would be highly appreciated. Shabbat Shalom and have a pleasant weekend, |
|
Western policy-makers grow increasingly-reconciled to co-existence with a nuclear Iran. They assume that, notwithstanding the radical rhetoric, the Iranian leadership is pragmatic, cognizant of its limitations, unwilling to expose its people to devastating Western retaliation and considering nuclear capabilities as a tool of deterrence — and not as an offensive weapon — against the US, NATO and Israel. However, a nuclear Iran would constitute a clear and present danger to global security and peace, which must not be tolerated. In order to avert such peril, it is incumbent to disengage from illusions and engage with realism. Unlike Western leaders, the Iranian revolutionary leadership is driven by ideological and religious conviction, bolstered by ancient imperialist ethos: 1. Jihad is the permanent state of relations between Moslems and non-Moslems, while peace and ceasefire accords are tenuous. The religious Shiite zeal is intensified by the Persian-Iranian ethos, shared by secular and religious Iranians, who believe Iran has been a regional and a global power for the last 2,600 years. Iran's religious/imperialistic strategy has guided Teheran's tactical policy toward the US (the "Great Satan" and the key target for Iran's terror and nuclear), Central & South America (an anti-US terror platform), Iraq (the chief Sunni rival in the Persian Gulf and an arena to weaken the US), Saudi Arabia (an apostate regime), the Gulf States (targeted for revolution and takeover), Afghanistan and Pakistan (arenas to erode the US' image), international terror organizations and terror cells in the US and Europe (weakening Western societies), Syria, Lebanon, Hizballah and Hamas (threatening Israel and advancing regional hegemony) and Israel (the "Little Satan," a Western outpost in the Abode of Islam, the source of Judea-Christian values). Western leaders are top heavy on "pragmatism" and low on ideology and religion. Therefore, they are preoccupied with Iranian global tactical policy, minimizing the study of Iran's strategic infrastructure of religion, ideology and history, which consider Shia, Jihad, Shihada and Persian imperialism as Teheran's Pillars of Fire. Western leaders believe in engagement — and not in confrontation — with Iran. However, Teheran's revolutionaries regard such an attitude as a symptom of Western fatigue, of a tendency to "blink first" and of a modern version of the defeatist European slogan: "Better Red than Dead." Moreover, Teheran considers the US a superpower in retirement and retreat, gradually adopting the European state-of-mind and losing its posture of endurance since the 1973 retreat from Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, the 1979 terrorist takeover of the US embassy in Teheran, the 1983 retreat from Lebanon following the blowing up of the US embassy and Marine headquarters in Beirut until the 2011 expected US withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, Iran demonstrated its willingness to pay a brutal price for its principles and interests, when sacrificing some 500,000 persons on the altar of the 1980-1988 war against Iraq, including approximately 100,000 children who were dispatched to clear minefields. Teheran is encouraged by Western preoccupation with engagement and sanctions, which constitute a delusion and not a solution. For instance, Russia and China consider the US a rival and do not share the US assessment of Iran. They benefit from a weakened US and therefore they do not cooperate in the implementation of sanctions. Europe employs tough rhetoric, but displays frail action. And, the UN will not support a tough US policy toward Iran. The longer the sanctions and engagement process, the more time is available to Iran to develop and acquire nuclear capabilities. Teheran benefits from Western adherence to a supposed linkage between the Palestinian issue and a successful campaign against Iran. However, there is no linkage between the Palestinian issue — or the Arab Israeli conflict or Israel's existence — and the pillars of Iran's strategy. The more entrenched the "Linkage Theory," the heavier the pressure on Israel and the weaker the pressure on Iran. In 1978, President Carter's policy toward the Shah was perceived as the backstabbing of a US ally, providing a tailwind to the anti-Shah opposition and facilitating the Iranian Revolution. In 2010, Western policy toward Iran is perceived as an acknowledgment of the potency of the revolutionary leadership, thus serving as a headwind to a weakened domestic opposition and minimizing the possibility of a domestically-generated regime-change. A sustained Western policy toward Iran would confront the Free World with a brutal dilemma: Accepting radical diplomatic, economic, military and religious demands presented by a nuclear Iran, or facing a series of vicious wars, including a rapidly escalated nuclear race among rogue regimes. In order to avoid such a dilemma, it is incumbent to disengage from the illusive options of deterrence and retaliation and engage with the realistic option of military-preemption/prevention. Furthermore, the cost of military inaction would dwarf the worst-case cost of a military preemptive action against Iran. Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is a consultant on US-Israel relations as well as the Chairman of Special Projects at the Ariel Center for Policy Research. Formerly the Minister for Congressional Affairs to Israel's Embassy in Washington, DC, Ettinger also served as Consul General of Israel to the Southwestern US. He is a former editor of Contemporary Mideast Backgrounder, and is the author of the Jerusalem Cloakroom series of reports. Contact him at yoramtex@netvision.net.il This article was published yesterday in YnetNews and is archived at
|
|
TAKE THE ACID TEST FOR ISLAMOPHOBIA
Posted by Bill Warner, July 30, 2010. |
|
A favorite comeback for someone who is critical of Islam is — you are Islamophobic. Never mind that the term phobic means an irrational fear. Really, the charge is that you are irrational AND a bigot. A bigot is immoral and a hater and has no possible reason for their views. There is a cure for bigotry. If you are a bigot, learning about the subject of bigotry can cure it. Clint Eastwood's character in Grand Torino started out as a bigot about the Hmong Vietnamese who moved in next door. As he got to know them, he changed and gave the ultimate sacrifice of his life to help them. The cure for his bigotry was getting to know more about his neighbors, the Hmong. Notice this does not say that as you get to know them, you will always like them better. There are people and groups that the more you know them, the less you like them. As you see what they do and how they think, you may actually start to fear them. Not being a bigot doesn't mean that you love everybody and what they do. In the sixties, the Black Panthers had a revolutionary, "stick it to the man", image that was cool. However, the more you got to know them and see what they did, you learned that the Panthers were serious racist thugs and dangerous to society. So just because someone is "oppressed" does not mean that they are decent people. Want to see if you are an Islamophobe? Let's presume that you don't like Islamic doctrine, Sharia law as an example, and would like to take the test to see if you are a bigot. Remember, if you are a bigot, then the more you get to know Islam, the better you will feel. Here are some concepts from Islamic doctrine, so that you can understand it better. Islam says that non-Muslims are Kafirs. Allah hates Kafirs and He even plots against them. Kafirs can be tortured, deceived, enslaved, crucified, raped and robbed. How important are Kafirs to Islam? Islam has three sacred texts: Koran, Sira (life of Mohammed) and Hadith (his traditions). Look at how much of Islam is devoted to the Kafir: Amount of Text Devoted to Kafir
If the Kafir is "bad", then there is a lot of "bad". How does your cultural sensitivity feel now? Feel any closer to Islam, any less afraid? Maybe, you need a little more exposure to become warmer towards Islam. Jihad should cure your ills. Isn't the jihad thing overblown? There are only a few verses about that, aren't there? Look at the statistics: Amount of Text Devoted to Jihad
Now that you are learning more about Islam, are your fears subsiding? Still afraid? Every Muslim will tell you that Islam was the first ideology to give women their rights. If we take everything that is written about women in the Koran and rank it according to whether the woman is held in high status, equal status and lower status, we find: Women's Status in the Koran
How does the women's issue strike you? Are you feeling more simpatico? Less Islamophobic? So, you took the Islamophobia test. Now that you know Islam better, do you now understand and realize that your Islamophobia was bigoted hatred? Surely, this test is biased. There must be some goodness in Islam for Kafirs. If you go through the Koran and pick out every single verse that offers good words, doesn't that prove that Islam is good? If every single verse that seems to promise good to Kafirs is counted up, then 2.6% of the verses offer good to Kafirs. But, wait! There is that contradiction and abrogation contradiction principle. The Koran is filled with verses that contradict each other and in every case of good verses, the 2.6%, are cancelled or abrogated, by later verses. The net result is 0%, nothing, is unmitigated good in the Koran for the Kafir. You have finished the Islamophobe Test. Feel closer to Islam? Or more afraid? If you feel closer and warmer about Islam, then you were Islamophobic, but now you are cured. If not, then your fears are real, not a phobia. Islam is like the Black Panthers — he more you know, the less you like and the more you are afraid.
Bill Warner, is
Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
|
|
GINGRICH: CRUCIAL RADICAL ISLAMIST BATTLEFIELD IS U.S.
Posted by Chuck Brooks, July 30, 2010. |
|
This article was written by Michelle Phillips
and it appeared yesterday in
The Washington Times. It is archived at
Phillips is a student intern with the Washington Times through the National Journalism Center covering international affairs. |
|
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Thursday said the greatest threat to national security is radical Islam, but the greatest battlefront for that threat is at home. "This is not a war on terrorism ... this is a struggle with radical Islamists," Mr. Gingrich told a group of about 200 people at the American Enterprise Institute. In his "America at Risk" speech, he drew comparisons to the U.S.' situation in World War II and the Cold War, calling for today's leaders to use some of the same strategies from those earlier conflicts. The problem is that many leaders are "sleepwalking" and don't face the Islamic threat, said Mr. Gingrich, who is widely thought to be a possible contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. He did not limit the war to the fighting in the Middle East, saying there are two additional, more important fronts: the United States and Europe. He noted that 54 jihadists have been arrested in the U.S. on terrorism charges since President Obama took office. "Every one of these instances constitutes a breakdown in national security," Mr. Gingrich said. He emphasized that such talk does not demonize all Muslims. "Let me draw a sharp distinction between those Muslims who live in the modern world and those Muslims who would radically change the modern world," he said. "The people who want to worship God in their own way and live under American law — we're not in the fight with them," Mr. Gingrich said in an interview after the speech. Editor's Note; These are some Comments by Readers of the original article. tlwinslow says: Islam is the only major world religion that takes commands from its god to conquer territory in order to set up a sociopoltical system that makes Muslims superior to non-Muslims and men to women, hence it's subject to drastic legal controls no different than the Ghost Dance religion, Mormonism or Scientology. Too bad, the fact that a quarter of the world's pop. claims to be Muslim scares the U.S. govt. into bowing to it as if it weren't really political, and try splitting hairs to separate good from bad Muslims, when all Muslims get their religion straight from the Quran, which is where the commands to set up Sharia come from. Hence the U.S. must either wake up now and stop the Trojan Horse at the gates by stopping and reversing Muslim immigration, or accept increasing anarchy and subversion of the Constitution by the growing Muslim pop., there's no crystal ball needed here. Too bad too many people won't or can't take the time to study Islam's little known history and strange terminology to understand how deep the supremacy goes, but it's free anytime to all with the Historyscoper at http://go.to/islamhistory. JDD says: "We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatic rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people. The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'? History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up because they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun. Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts — the fanatics who threaten our way of life. Let us hope that thousands, world-wide, read this and think about it, and send it on — before it's too late. The point is, as history has demonstrated...though you keep quiet,
silent...you will not save yourself!"
Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com
|
|
INJUSTICE? STATE WORKERS WHO ID'ED ILLEGAL ALIENS FACE CRIMINAL CHARGES
Posted by Jim Kouri, July 30, 2010. |
|
"We live in a topsy-turvey nation and this story should anger all Americans. Suddenly our nation is prosecuting patriots while protecting lawbreakers," said a former NYPD police officer and private security firm owner. The Utah state employees, suspected of blowing the whistle on more than a thousand illegal immigrants living in the state, have been placed on administrative leave and will likely be criminally charged, according attorneys from a non-partisan, public-interest group. Last week a list of 1,300 suspected illegal aliens was circulated anonymously to various state and federal agencies as well as media outlets, according to a statement from the Washington, DC-based Judicial Watch. A letter was enclosed with the 29-page list that included the illegal aliens' phone numbers, addresses and birth dates. The letter, signed "Concerned Citizens of the United States," alleged that they "observed these individuals in our neighborhoods, driving on our streets, working in our stores, attending our schools and entering our public welfare buildings." Copies of the list and letter was sent to law enforcement agencies, news media outlets and Utah state lawmakers by the group, who demanded that those named be deported. Calling it the "deplorable" work of a "small rogue group," Utah Governor Gary Herbert quickly launched an investigation and vowed to punish any public employees responsible for participating in blowing the whistle. So far two workers with the Utah Department of Workforce Services have been suspended and at least eight others are under investigation. All face criminal charges for violating state and federal privacy laws, according to the governor. "We live in a topsy-turvey nation and this story should anger all Americans. Suddenly our nation is prosecuting patriots while protecting lawbreakers," said former NYPD police officer and private security firm owner Bill Fitzgerald. Latino Project director Tony Yapias told Reuters that his Utah office was "inundated with calls from concerned Hispanics asking if they were on the list." Utah Democrat Party officials are proud of their protecting illegal immigrants and providing them with endless public benefits, including discounted tuition at public colleges and universities as well as other perks not afforded under federal law. Two of the state's largest cities — Salt Lake City and Provo — have official sanctuary policies that forbid public employees or law enforcement officers from inquiring about a resident's immigration status, according to Judicial Watch. Earlier this year Utah proudly became the nation's first state to offer a special class of driver's licenses for illegal aliens who won't be ineligible to obtain the cards when new federal security standards kick in. For years, Utah was one of only a handful of states to offer illegal immigrants driver's license. However, some Utah lawmakers plan to introduce legislation similar to the new law in Arizona, which requires state and local police to determine the immigration status of anyone they encounter in the course of their police work whom they reasonably suspect of being in the country illegally.
Jim Kouri, CPP, is
Fifth Vice-President of the
National Association of Chiefs of Police. Contact them at
(201) 941-5397 or copmagazine@aol.com
|
|
SEE NO EVIL
Posted by Truth Provider, July 30, 2010. |
|
Dear friends, Today, quite a shocking bulletin. I am sure many of you ask yourselves the obvious question: Why the obsession with Israel? Why with all the persecution of innocents elsewhere in the word, tiny Israel (6 million Jews) occupies such a prominent space in world media, the UN, academia, "human rights" organizations, Internet bloggers, etc. etc. How many other such tiny countries do you hear about so incessantly every day around the clock? Is it really Zionism, the aspiration of the Jewish people to a country of their own, that is bugging them? Is it really the fate of the "poor" "Palestinians?" The "Palestinians" whom the entire world rushes to help and aid, "Palestinians" who see themselves as part of the petroleum-rich Arab world? (in case you forgot, here is article 1 of the PLO Charter: "Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation"). I can testify from many conversations I had with Israeli Arabs (about 1.2 million Arabs are citizens of Israel) that the vast majority of them would not dream of living in a "Palestinian" State should it become a reality. Israeli Arabs live in freedom, have democratic rights and previledges under the laws of one of the most progressive democracies in the entire world. They would never contemplate exchanging that with life in an Arab country under an Arab regime. I venture to say that the same is true with the Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. If their true agenda had been an independent country, they could have achieved it a long time ago. The truth is that for 62 years (and before) their only agenda was the demise of Israel. This is what they live for and what their leaders brainwash them with. This is also what their "friends" and "supporters" wish and push them towards. Which brings back the question above: Why the obsession with Israel and Zionism? Are Tibeteans, Darfurans, Kurds, Armenians, Chechnians and many other nations less important than the "Palestinians?" I am sure you know the answer: Neo anti-Semitism. After the Holocaust, old fashion anti-Semitism went out of fashion. Anti-Semites needed a replacement, so anti-Zionism took its place. As we say in Hebrew: The same lady with a different dress. And one more question: Have you ever heard or read a comment denying the history of the Tibetans people? The answer is NO! Have you ever heard or read a comment denying the history of the Jewish people? The answer is YES! Every day! Now please read carefully Caroline Glick's shocking latest article. Your Truth Provider,
This is by Caroline B. Glick and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=183073. She is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. She writes: I am sorry I wrote this column. Because an audience that demands an explanation of why evil is evil is an audience that has already sided with evil |
|
It's springtime for Jew haters. 
This week Oscar winning conspiracy theorist Oliver Stone joined Helen Thomas and Mel Gibson in the swelling ranks of out-of-the-closet celebrity Jew haters. In an interview with the Sunday Times, Stone said that Adolf Hitler had been given a bum rap and that through "Jewish domination of the media," the Jews have inflated the importance of the Holocaust and wrecked US foreign policy. In the wake of criticism in Jewish circles, on Wednesday Stone's publicist issued a mealy-mouthed clarification. Stone failed to retract or amend his statement that "There's a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f---ed up United States foreign policy for years." He also did not retract his view that Jews use the Holocaust to control American foreign policy. Stone simply referred to his claim that Jews make too much of the Holocaust because the Germans killed more Russians than Jews as "clumsy." He then broadened his initial allegation that Jews make too much of the Holocaust by allowing that we are joined in our efforts by non-Jews. And since non-Jews are involved also, he was wrong to criticize us. As Stone put it, "The fact that the Holocaust is still a very important, vivid and current matter today is, in fact, a great credit to the very hard work of a broad coalition of people committed to the remembrance of this atrocity." (Emphasis added.) Stone still believes that the rounding up and exterminating of three-quarters of Europe's Jews is really not as notable or morally troubling as high Russian wartime casualties, but it's not solely Jews' fault that people don't share Stone's views. Arguably even more despicable that Stone's display of Jew hatred was manner in which it was received. On the one hand, there was the thunderous silence of the media. And on the other hand there were the insistent, repeated attempts to justify his statements. Readers' talkbacks to write-ups of his remarks were rife with assertions that Stone's statements were not bigoted. Many agreed that Jews dominate the media and since they believe this is true, they argued that saying so is not a bigoted act. Others claimed that while Stone's statements were inaccurate, there is no evidence that he hates Jews and therefore, they weren't bigoted. At any rate, Patrick Goldstein of the Los Angeles Times and many others have argued, it would be wrong for Stone be discredited for his attacks against Jews. It is difficult to imagine that if someone trafficked in ethnic stereotypes about groups like blacks, and claimed that they wreck US foreign policy to serve their own nefarious aims, Goldstein and the talk backers would defend him. But then anti-Jewish bigotry has different rules than other hatreds. Stone and his defenders are not alone either in their attitude towards Jews or their denial of their attitude towards Jews. Indeed, they are part of a worldwide trend.
TAKE THE situation in Malmo, Sweden. Last Friday Jew haters set off firecrackers outside a synagogue in Malmo. The blasts came a day after Jew haters posted a bomb threat on the wall of the synagogue for the second time in two weeks. Malmo is a hotbed of anti-Jewish violence and the Jews of the city are fleeing in droves. Yet in the face of all this, Malmo's non-Jews cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that there is a problem with anti-Semitism in their city. Even those who are supposed to be responsible for combating anti-Semitism refuse to acknowledge that Jews in Malmo are being attacked because they are Jews. Bjorn Lagerback is the man in Malmo who is supposed to care about anti-Semitic violence. Lagerback serves as the coordinator of the local forum in the city charged with combating hate crimes. In an interview with Malmo's The Local cited by the World Jewish Congress, Lagerback tried to impress on the world that the bombing was serious. Not because it was violence aimed at Jews, of course. No, according to Lagerback, this bombing is serious because it might hurt non-Jews. He said "We condemn this completely. Such an event is not just directed against the synagogue, but also at other targets that could be described as ethnic or religious." Forget about the fact that only Malmo's synagogues, and not its churches and mosques require around the clock security. If no other ethnic or religious groups were targeted would bombing synagogues no longer warrant condemnation? The acceptance of anti-Semitism has reached epidemic proportions. In Amsterdam, anti-Semites are making the mundane act of walking around outside in broad daylight a dangerous prospect for Jews. Jews are regularly attacked verbally and physically by anti-Semites as they walk on the streets of the Dutch capital. In an attempt to catch and punish anti-Semitic thugs, the Amsterdam police force has dispatched policemen dressed as Jews to pound the pavement. The hope is that these decoys will be able to draw out the offenders and arrest them. Apparently, some Dutch have a problem with punishing anti-Semitic attackers. As Paul Belien reported in the Brussels Journal, "Evelien van Roemburg, an Amsterdam counselor of the Green Left Party, says that using a decoy by the police amounts to [entrapment], which is itself a criminal offence under Dutch law." In other words, Van Roemburg thinks that people who walk around while appearing to be Jewish are asking for it. Van Roemburg no doubt also believes that women in mini-skirts deserve to be raped. All of this brings us to a discussion of the most endemic form of contemporary anti-Semitism: Anti-Zionism. There is no reason for anyone to be surprised that anti-Semites deny that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. After all, they deny that every other form of anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism. Why should anti-Zionism receive special treatment? It is self-evident that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. To say that Jews — uniquely among all the nations — have no right to freedom and self determination is obviously anti-Semitic. Anti-Semites give a variety of excuses to justify their rejection of the Jewish people's right to freedom and sovereignty in our homeland. Sometimes they say they have no problem with Jewish nationalism per se. They are simply anti-nationalist generally. But remarkably, these anti-nationalist anti-Zionists invariably just happen to be outspoken supporters of Palestinian nationalism. Moreover, it is curious that universalist anti-nationalists only have a special term to describe their opposition to Jewish nationalism. No one ever mentions being anti-Irishist, for instance. When someone says they oppose Irish nationalism, the obvious conclusion is that they don't like Irish people. Just so, people who are anti-French tend not to like French people. And yet, the anti-Zionists would have us believe that their opposition to the Jewish state has nothing to do with their feelings about Jews. Beyond their nonsensical attempts to deny the fact that anti-Zionism is a specific rejection of a specific — that is Jewish — type of nationalism, there is the fact that anti-Zionists tend inevitably to drink from other anti-Jewish sewers as well. Take former British parliamentarian Clare Short for example. During her just ended career in the British parliament, Short became known as an outspoken anti-Zionist. Short rejected Israel's right to exist and castigated it for its "bloody, brutal and systematic annexation of land, destruction of homes and the deliberate creation of an apartheid system." But Short's Israel kick didn't end with her frequent condemnations of imaginary but lurid Israeli crimes. As time went by, Short began channeling centuries of British Jew hatred. Like her forefathers who blamed Jews for rain, drought, plague and fire, Shore blamed Israel for global warming. As she put it in a speech at the European Parliament three years ago, Israel "undermines the international community's reaction to global warming." As Shore saw it, European leaders are properly obsessed with attacking the Jewish state. But because Israel insists on existing and so requires Europeans to condemn it, Israel prevents the Europeans from attending to the threat of carbon which, if left unregulated will "end the human race." So if the world boils over, the cauldron will be made in Israel. One of the most prominent anti-Zionists today is Prof. Juan Cole from University of Michigan. Part of being a successful anti-Zionist involves claiming that Jews have no right to the land of Israel. So to be a good anti-Zionist, one needs to deny Jewish history. To this end, in March Cole published a piece of historical fiction at Salon online magazine. Titled "Ten reasons why East Jerusalem does not belong to Israel," Cole mixed half truths with flagrant lies to justify his denial of Jewish history and belittlement of the Jewish rights. Cole wrote, "Jerusalem not only was not being built by the likely then non-existent 'Jewish people' in 1000 BCE, but Jerusalem probably was not even inhabited at that point in history. Jerusalem appears to have been abandoned between 1000 BCE and 900 BCE, the traditional dates for the united kingdom under David and Solomon." This assertion is so mendacious that it takes your breath away. As anyone who has actually been in Jerusalem can attest, it is all but impossible to be physically present in the oldest areas of the city and not bump into relics dating from between 1000-900 BCE. Cole's allegation is the academic equivalent of Louis Farakhan's claim that white people are devils planted on earth by aliens. As an anti-Zionist anti-Semite, it was just a matter of time until Cole travelled into the fetid swamp of denying the historical record to facilitate his false claim that Jews are not a people and therefore bereft of rights as a nation to our national homeland. And why shouldn't he cover himself in anti-Semitic muck? So far, the stench has brought him great success. The very fact that I felt compelled to write an essay explaining why anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism and why anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism is depressing proof that anti-Semites have been wildly successful whitewashing their bigotry. What makes contemporary anti-Semitism unique is its purveyors' great efforts to hide its very existence. Their motivation is clear. Outside the openly genocidal anti-Semitic Muslim world, most anti-Semites are self-described liberals who claim to oppose bigotry. For these people, pretending away their prejudice is the key to their continued claim to enlightenment. And so the likes of Oliver Stone publish clarifications. And Cole invents history. And the Europeans blame Jews and Israel and Zionism when Jews inside and outside Israel are assaulted and killed. And I am sorry I wrote this column. Because an audience that demands an explanation of why evil is evil is an audience that has already sided with evil. Correction: In Tuesday's column I wrote that the US's upgrade in the PLO's Washington diplomatic mission gave added privileges to PLO representatives in the US. In fact, the upgrade is a symbolic gesture of support for the Palestinians. The representatives do not enjoy diplomatic immunity.
Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send
an email to ynz@netvision.net.il
|
|
GOT MILK, SHEIKH?
Posted by Family Security Matters, July 30, 2010. |
|
This article was written by Dr. Nancy Hartevelt Kobrin and Dr. Joan Jutta Lachkar Dr. Nancy Kobrin, a psychoanalyst with a Ph.D. in romance and semitic languages, specializes in Aljamia and Old Spanish in Arabic script. She is an expert on the Minnesota Somali diaspora and a graduate of the Human Terrain System program at Leavenworth Kansas. Her new book is The Banality of Suicide Terrorism: The Naked Truth About the Psychology of Islamic Suicide Bombing. Dr. Joanie Lachkar is a licensed Marriage and Family therapist in private practice in Brentwood and Tarzana, California, who teaches psychoanalysis and is the author of The Narcissistic/Borderline Couple: A Psychoanalytic Perspective on Marital Treatment (1992, The Many Faces of Abuse: Treating the Emotional Abuse of High-Functioning Women (1998), The V-Spot, How to Talk to a Narcissist, How to Talk to a Borderline and a recent paper, "The Psychopathology of Terrorism" presented at the Rand Corporation and the International Psychohistorical Association. She is also an affiliate member for the New Center for Psychoanalysis. |
|
While the Saudis might have a lot of oil, they seem to be running short on milk. So much so that one of their imams wrote a fatwa* recently permitting the breast feeding of adult males thereby getting around the gender apartheid of the Kingdom of the Deprived. This would allow the nursing adult male to become mahram[**] and the nursing woman can then be in close quarters with him. To clarify his status changes from say a frequent visitor to more like a quasi member of the family, even called a "milk" brother, sort of like a blood brother. This is not the first time a breast feeding fatwa has been issued. Several years ago in Egypt one was issued so that men could be nursed at the office by female workers, as if those poor women didn't have anything else to do? Imagine having to also contend with the henna dyed bristly beards of the devout, scratching the tender breasts of a postpartum ummi (mother). Is there no shame? Seriously, something is going on here. How can we understand it? Let us go a little deeper. After all even Al Qaeda has produced breast implant bombs for female suicide bombers. Why this obsession with the breast? Is Hooters moving to Saudi Arabia soon? Why this obsession with nursing? Saudi Arabia seems to be grappling with its age-old narrative in the Quran. Could we say that this goes back to even the Biblical narrative that the Prophet Muhammad has co-opted, that he got stuck with a dry desolate desert and the Jews got the Land Flowing With Milk and Honey. A sensitive issue... As the saying goes, form follows function and function follows fantasy. If one visualizes one's destiny as limited to the desert, one perpetuates that image and only gets a dry infertile breast whereas if one visualizes life, growth, one thinks fertility and greenery and that perpetuates life in that image. Just think — the color of Islam is green; could it be because of unconsciously searching for that fertile land? Israel's flag of blue and white on the other hand looks skyward to the Transcendental. Yet because Arab Muslim culture is so rife with deprivation and victimhood, nothing is ever enough. Tragically, they live within a black hole, a vacuum or space that can never be filled. Yet they demand and demand and even when the milk is offered, it is either never enough or insatiable to their desire. More! More! More! There is never enough milk and there is never enough land. The same holds true for other Muslims as well. Even Somalia's name means "Go milk the camel." And the Somalis believe that they are descended from the Arabians! What does this all mean and how does this impact the Muslim psyche? With deprivation and the accompanying defensive maneuvering, the first thing that goes is reality. Maybe someone needs to suggest to them to do DNA testing at National Geographic to discover that the Arabians actually came out of the Olduvai Gorge in Kenya/Tanzania like everyone else! So what does this have to do with the theme of milk? The nature of deprivation, shame/blame, preservation of honor, keeps Muslims locked into a cycle of revenge and attack. They perpetually envy the other who has the milk. Ironically the adult male who is to be nursed, is now attempting to get what he didn't get as an infant and now as an adult, he has to be nursed — hence the fatwa. This is why we refer to Muslim society as an "orphan society." Indeed the Prophet Muhammad himself was an orphan. The generic orphan also plays a leading role in the drama of the Quran. Mother Mary of Christianity becomes the Mother of Orphans in Islam. Yet sadly even though the New Testament with its nursing Madonna and Child has been co-opted, it is not truly Islamic foundational imagery. They borrowed it; they didn't create it. Saudis and other Muslims do not know how to mourn their losses. They stay glued together like a big enmeshed dysfunctional family defending their wounds and licking them. They bully to get what they want, but even then it is never enough. They avenge by the sword. Got milk? We don't think so. [**] In Islamic sharia legal terminology, a mahram (also transliterated mahrim or maharem) is an unmarriageable kin with whom sexual intercourse would be considered incestuous, a punishable taboo. Current usage of the term covers a wider range of people and mostly deals with the dress code practice of hijab. (Wikipedia) This article appeared in Family Security Matters (FSM). |
|
HOW THE CIA GOT IT WRONG ON IRAN'S NUKES
Posted by Daily Alert, July 30, 2010. |
|
This below is a resume of an Op-Ed written by Edward Jay Epstein that appeared July 29, 2010 in the Wall Street Journal. |
|
In a stunning departure from a decade of assessments, the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran declared: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." Unfortunately, as the Obama administration has now acknowledged, the NIE's conclusion was dead wrong, costing us precious time in dealing with a serious threat. What caused such a disastrous mistake? As James Risen, the New York Times national security reporter, explains in his book State of War, in 2004, a CIA communications officer accidentally included data in a satellite transmission to an agent in Iran that could be used to identify "virtually every spy the CIA had in Iran." This disastrous error was compounded because the recipient of the transmission turned out to be a double-agent controlled by the Iranian security service. This allowed the Iranian security service to control the information these agents provided the CIA, which may have been vulnerable to receiving misleading secret intelligence that Tehran had abandoned its nuclear ambitions. The Daily Alert is sponsored by Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and prepared by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). To subscribe to their free daily alerts, send an email to daily@www.dailyalert.jcpa.org |
|
RUSSIA CONDEMNED EU SANCTIONS ON IRAN AS "UNACCEPTABLE";
EGYPTIAN DAILY ON GAZA ECONOMY
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 30, 2010. |
|
' RUSSIA CONDEMNED EU SANCTIONS ON IRAN AS "UNACCEPTABLE" The EU imposed its own sanctions against Iran's foreign trade, banking and energy sectors. The Russian regime contends that the additional EU sanctions on Iran, imposed shortly after the fourth round of UN sanctions, undermine "calibrated" international efforts to deal with Iranian nuclear development (IMRA, 7/29/10 from BBC News via Egypt Daily News). www.imra.org.il/ The Russian statements reveal two problems of logic and motive: (1) Suppose the purpose of the UN sanctions were to make it too difficult for Iran to proceed with nuclear development suspected of being military. How would national supplements to those sanctions on industries related to that development impede the UN goal? Now suppose the purpose of the UN sanctions were to calibrate difficulties for Iran below the level needed to deter Iran. EU supplements to those sanctions interfere with international efforts to pretend to be preventing Iranian military nuclear development. (2) Because Russia agreed to some sanctions, and Pres. Medvedev made a few favorable statements on other matters, the Obama administration hails its policy on Russia as bringing Russia around to the West's view of Iran as a nuclear menace. The newest Russian statement, by condemning the additional sanctions, fits a pattern of zig-zag. Russia condemns, concedes a smidgen, gets concessions or praise or spares Iran, and now it is back to condemning. The real story is that Russia still is protecting Iran. It is not changing, but deceiving. The Administration sacrifices U.S. national security and other national interests to Russia in the hope that Russia will make compensatory concessions to the U.S.. Not being asked to sign on the dotted line, Russia offers mostly hints. The new UN sanctions, following three rounds of ineffective sanctions against a die hard Iranian regime, amount to Russian-Chinese stalling. The U.S. still does not know who are its friends, foes, and friends of its foes. The U.S. still lacks a strategy for defeating Islamo-fascism. That term and synonyms are banned within the Obama administration. Obama refuses to identify the chief enemy of civilization. We lose troops and taxes fighting gunmen, without a strategy that identifies their ideology and prescribes ways of discrediting it so they don't take up arms against us. We let them indoctrinate people until we run out of money, troops, and patience.
EGYPTIAN DAILY ON GAZA ECONOMY Writing in the Egyptian daily, al-Ahram, Ashraf Abu Al-Houl describes Gaza's economy in July. His views on Israel may be taken from his calling Israel enforcement of its blockade a "crime." Mr. Al-Houl toured the new resorts and the markets. He found them mostly "grand." He was amazed by how well filled were the shops, including with luxuries. The blockade was neutralized before the flotilla from Turkey. It remains as a formal, political blockade, not much of an economic one. The author's view of Israel is that its enforcement of the blockade is a "crime." Most of the shops get supplied via Egypt. Despite the additional costs of bringing the goods in, their prices are lower than those in Egypt, especially for food. The markets suffer from over-supply and from consumer expectations that falling prices will drop even more. As inventories pile up, Merchants cut back on new purchases. Prices are not falling in the resorts catering to the newly wealthy smugglers. At one, sandwiches cost about $100. Most of the resorts are connected to Hamas leaders. The retail industry does not represent the whole economy in Gaza. Unemployment is about 45%! (StandWithUs (www.standwithus.com/, 7/29/10.) The Egyptian's observations indicate that contrary to rumor, Israel was not starving the people of Gaza. But the average resident is poor, because of the way the Strip is managed and devoted to jihad. The source article has photographs of water parks in Gaza. Why don't the New York newspapers?
CAMPUS WATCH CORRECTS LEFTIST AND RADICAL ISLAMIC CRITICS Campus Watch has issued another lengthy correction against the almost daily accusations and paranoia against it from the U.S. Left and apologists for radical Islam. We'll summarize the main ones. The source article provides a link for each complaint and for rebuttals. What is Campus Watch (CW): "Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum, reviews and critiques Middle East studies in North America, with an aim to improving them. The project mainly addresses five problems: analytical failures, the mixing of politics with scholarship, intolerance of alternative views, apologetics, and the abuse of power over students. Campus Watch fully respects the freedom of speech of those it debates while insisting on its own freedom to comment on their words and deeds." Founded eight years ago, the organization notes the irony that its critics, whose main complaint is being silenced by CW, continue shouting denunciations of it. (The Left often demands that its critics be silenced, as Prof. Steven Plaut has documented for us.) Dorit Naaman, Alliance Atlantis Professor of Film and Media at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, names CW as part of a big conspiracy, based on a conference that CW was not involved in. Failing to differentiate CW work from non-CW material in its archives, Nora Barrows-Friedman, writing for the Electronic Intifada, accuses CW of "smear campaigns" against two professors. Actually, CW wrote one article about one professor and nothing about the other. No campaign and no smear. John J. Mearsheimer and Steven M. Walt, among others, keep accusing CW of being part of an Israel lobby that directs CW efforts. CW is an unaffiliated organization run by Daniel Pipes (shown in photo taken from a website ofhis).. CW challenges Mearsheimer and Walt to produce evidence of Israeli dictation. They do not; they just accuse. In the Palestine Chronicle, Franklin Lamb calls the Zionist Freedom Alliance "a spin-off of Campus Watch." CW replies, "That's news to us." Hebrew University of Jerusalem professor of political science Itzhak Galnoor claims that Israel-Academic-Monitor.com is connected to CW. It isn't. [Prof. Steven Plaut, who founded the Israeli organization, probably was inspired by CW. They operate independently and in different countries.] Sharmila Devi, in the National (Abu Dhabi), claims that Campus Watch criticizes professors for being "anti-Israel and pro-Islam." "In fact, we critique professors for being anti-objectivity and pro-politicization." In the Socialist Worker, Brian Napoletano claims that CW denounces scholars who criticize Israel and routinely accuses them of anti-Semitism. No, CW criticizes scholars for the substance of their work. [Critics of CW ignore the substance of CW criticism.] Ben-Gurion University political geography professor David Newman "calls Campus Watch a "disgrace for anyone who believes in the concept of freedom of speech." The professor, like many of the other critics, mischaracterizes free speech. Free speech lets a professor present a lecture and lets CW critique it. If CW is not allowed to critique it, it is denied free speech. David Newman accuses CW of McCarthyism, because some students go through CW to advise the public of campus discourse. Sen. McCarthy got people blacklisted, and without a hearing. In "the National (Abu Dhabi), Jonathan Cook associates Campus Watch with the terms 'neoconservative,' 'right-wing groups,' 'climate of fear,' and 'witch-hunt.' The first two labels are misused as epithets. There is no climate of fear against leftist professors. Nobody is being hunted down. "Guardian blogger Sunny Hundal relies on the old 'according to one critic' trick to make all manner of untrue and nonsensical accusations against Campus Watch. We're still waiting for Hundal to disclose the mysterious identity of his unnamed source..." (Cinnamon Stillwell, CW, 7/29/10.) Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
CLEARER THAN EVER WHY ISRAEL NEEDS THE JORDAN VALLEY
Posted by Hillel Fendel, July 29, 2010. |
|
Follow Israel news on
The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs presents a five-minute video that dramatically and clearly delineates Israel's critical security needs to protect it from attack. In addition, the JCPA recently hosted a first-of-its-kind gathering of senior Israeli generals who outlined the basic principles of a defense policy focused on maintaining defensible borders for Israel. It was held in light of recent events, such as the deterioration in relations between Israel and its erstwhile ally Turkey, which underscore how critical it is for Israel to be guided by the principle of defending itself by itself. The video below, which features state-of-the-art graphics to depict Israel's topography-related dangers, can also be seen on the JCPA website Background: After the Six Day War in 1967, when Israel was nearly overrun by four Arab armies on three fronts, the United Nations resolved that every country in the region has the right "to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats and acts of force." The video shows vividly that if Israel does not control both the Jordan Rift Valley and critical mountains of Samaria, its borders would be rendered absolutely indefensible — and thereby in violation of the spirit of the UN resolution. The video effectively utilizes 3D graphics to show, as no map can, how Israel is protected by the heights of the Jordan Valley on one side, and by those of the Samarian mountains on the other. "The Jordan Rift Valley on the east forms a natural barrier between Israel and the countries of Jordan, Iraq and Iran," the narrator relates. It rises from 1,200 feet below sea level to a height of 3,000 feet above, "creating a steep virtual wall opposite any force attacking from the east." Here, the film shows a Jerusalem-bound enemy tank failing in its attempt to scale and climb the steep mountainside. Similarly, the Mountain Ridge of Samaria is dramatically shown to dominate Israel's Coastal Plain, Tel Aviv area, industry, population concentration, and airports. The film shows how Palestinian Authority control of the mountains of Judea and Samaria would mean that Jerusalem, Israel's airports, and virtually every spot in the State of Israel would be within rocket range. "That's why any future arrangement must include Israeli control over key areas of the mountain ridge and a demilitarized Palestinian state," the narrator warns. video Another point emphasized in the clip is the importance of Israeli control of the airspace over Judea and Samaria. To avoid the threat of fighter jets crossing into Israel — a four-minute fly from Jordan to the Mediterranean — Israel must be able to identify enemy planes before they cross the Jordan River, so that they can be shot down in time. This means, the video reiterates, that Israel must control the airspace over Judea and Samaria. A summary of some of the main points made by the various generals who took part in the conference: Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon, former IDF Chief of Staff: "In his major policy speech at Bar-Ilan University in 2009, Prime Minister Netanyahu articulated a major shift in Israel's policy — a restoration of Israel's traditional security-based approach to achieving a lasting peace... In the aftermath of Arafat's rejection of Prime Minister Ehud Barak's peace offer, the Palestinian suicide bombing war that followed, Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, the Second Lebanon War, the failed Annapolis talks, and the recent war in Gaza, the Netanyahu government is re-adopting the notion that safeguarding Israel's vital security requirements is the only path to a viable and durable peace with our Palestinian neighbors. Maj.-Gen. (res.) Uzi Dayan: "It is commonly misunderstood just how vulnerable Israel actually is. Some 70 percent of its population and 80 percent of its industrial capacity are concentrated in the narrow coastal strip between the Mediterranean Sea and the West Bank. The adjacent West Bank hills topographically dominate the relatively flat and exposed coastal plain, providing a distinct advantage to an attacker... If the West Bank were to fall into hostile hands, the resulting situation would pose a constant threat to Israel's national infrastructure, including Ben-Gurion International Airport, the Trans-Israel Highway toll road [Highway 6], Israel's National Water Carrier, and its high-voltage electric power lines. Dr. Dore Gold, on How Washington Has Understood Israel's Security Needs: "The United States has historically backed Israel's view that UN Security Council Resolution 242, adopted in the wake of the Six-Day War on November 22, 1967, does not require a full withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines (also called the 1967 borders). There is no basis to the argument that the U.S. has traditionally demanded of Israel either a full withdrawal or a nearly full withdrawal from the territories it captured in the Six-Day War. Maj.-Gen. (res.) Aharon Ze'evi Farkash explained the importance of the demilitarization of a Palestinian entity, and Brig.-Gen. (res.) Udi Dekel elaborated on the need for Israel's control of the airspace over Judea and Samaria. Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror said that modern history in southern Lebanon, Bosnia, Egypt and Beirut has shown that peacekeeping forces cannot guarantee peace, and generally leave when one side attacks.
Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor at Arutz-Sheva (www.Israel National News.com).
|
|
THE DYNAMICS OF BECOMING ORTHODOX: DUTCH JEWISH WOMEN RETURNING TO JUDAISM AND HOW THEIR MOTHERS FELT ABOUT IT
Posted by Dan Wyman Books, July 29, 2010. |
|
Dear Friends, We are excited to offer to you the following fascinating study, just published, on the impact of increased religious observance by one generation on its relations with the generation preceeding. This particular study looks at chanages in generational dynamics in Holland brought about by the increase in ba'a lot teshuvah over the last few decades. Details follow; please submit your orders to us by phone or email. Many thanks, Dan Wyman THE DYNAMICS OF BECOMING ORTHODOX: DUTCH JEWISH WOMEN RETURNING TO JUDAISM AND HOW THEIR MOTHERS FELT ABOUT IT
The return to Judaism or the teshuvah experience emerged in the mid 1960s when young American Jews became involved in a spiritual search that eventually led them to discover and embrace Orthodox Judaism. It signaled the start of what would become a widespread phenomenon. Within a relatively short period, thousands of Jews in the United States, Israel, Britain, France, the Soviet Union, South Africa, the Netherlands and other countries committed themselves to Orthodox Judaism and became observant. A Jew who returns to Orthodox Judaism is known as a ba'al teshuvah; for a woman the term is ba'alat teshuvah (plural forms: ba'alei and ba'a lot teshuvah respectively).This study of ba'alot teshuvah in the Netherlands is a qualitative and exploratory investigation on how Dutch returnee women and their mothers experienced, perceived and interpreted the return to Orthodox Judaism. In short: How do these returnees and their mothers feel about the religious intensification? In this context the research also pays attention to the ways in which the Dutch returnees became involved with Orthodox Judaism, how they found their religious niche and whether their becoming Orthodox impacted on intergenerational and multigenerational relationships. Minny Evaline Mock-Degen (1945) grew up in the Netherlands, studied cultural anthropology at the University in Amsterdam, and taught at SOSA (Stichting tot Opleiding Sociale Arbeid). In 1985 she emigrated with her family to Israel, where she started volunteering at a hotline for Orthodox woman and participated in a graduate program in clinical sociology at Neve Yerushalayim, under the auspices of the University of Texas. She later joined the research team of a pilot study in Israel which sought to explore how ba'a lot teshuvah (woman returnees) and their secular mothers perceived the religious intensification and how it impacted on family relations. This participation led to undertaking research among Dutch returnees and their mothers which resulted in a doctorate thesis (2006) at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. This book is a revised and expanded version of Minny Mock's doctorate thesis. Please order today from Dan Wyman Book, 183 Ainslie St. Brooklyn, NY 11211. Email: dan@danwymanbooks.com; Phone: 718.963.0410 Thank you.
|
|
EMERGENCY!!!! OD YOSEIF CHAI: YESHIVA'S APPEAL AGAINST Demolition REJECTED
Posted by Robin Ticker, July 29, 2010. | |
| |
|
Dear Rabbanim, Print Media, Friends and Family, amv'sh This is a very bad OMEN. This can not be taken quietly. A Yeshiva and Synagogue destroyed in the Shomron or anywhere sends a terrible message to the world. I re-experience the destruction of Gush Katif shuls. A wound still festering, now reopened and in the process of being stabbed once again. What agitation did the Gush Katif people do to deserve the destruction of their synagogues, still not rebuilt? (All except 1 or 2 out of 26) Can a Yeshiva and a Synagogue be demolished retroactively at the whim of an Israeli minister heavily involved in politics after many have signed agreed, processed and built. This building has been faithfully serving the Shomron communities as a Beit Knesset and Jewish Center of Learning. It is also a Yeshiva Boys High School. Can this building be retroactively annulled, demolished, erased and blotted off the map? Can it's reason to exist cease based on the decisions of politicians and bureaucrats who say so? What explanation can you offer those high school students? Clearly it is "You have no rights in this place. Leave this area immediately. Your house and home and school and shul are not protected by a security system!!!! How can this civil administration, ruled by politics, override previous administrations that signed and approved??? What message does this send the world? Better left unsaid and Al Tiftach Peh LaSatan... Barak is in America and the timing of this is not coincidental! WOW! Can't beat this gift... Destruction in Judea and Samaria, a wonderful present to Obama from BARAK the "Defense" Minister of Israel under Netanyahu!! Beats cigars and watches. This Yeshiva was built by Israel and has been standing 11 years! It's Rosh Yeshiva is depicted as a dangerous agitator. So let's talk about agitation! Let's talk about how the government of Israel deals with real agitation from the Palestinians like trespassing, stealing, and arson on farms within Judea and Samaria Let's talk about the same scenario on farms in the Galil and the Negev. Let's talk about how the IDF sits with their hands folded and at times, from orders above, does nothing to protect the property of taxpaying Jews, citizens of the State, living in Judea and Samaria. The IDF is confused as per who they must protect and defend. They know that they must surely protect the stone throwing, arson setting Arabs from those "militant" settlers. If one of those settlers even dare to burn even a tire, that's it for them. Jail,. Isolation.. Even if they had the thought in their mind to commit the crime of burning a tire, now that's reallllllly bad... Compare their pre-sentencing jail term with proven Palestinian terrorists...And which right wing settler has the means to afford to pay the lawyers the fees that are necessary to defend themselves? The Palestinians have pockets that are a bottomless pit and the best lawyers are hired on their behalf. By whom? Shouldn't we ask? Their money flows from the European Union, America, Saudi Arabai and of course Iran and their proxies in Lebanon and Syria etc ...The Police accept the lies of Arabs as testimony without investigation of the facts and then send out stories based on lies and fabrication to the media throughout the world who are very quick to report this "news" . But the IDF is confused as to how to protect the tax paying settlers before they became "militant" having been provoked by destructive, trespassers, stone throwers and arson setting Palestinians. Why don't the Jewish newspapers carry real stories of agitation instead of prefabricated ones. How much provoking must the settlers take? PLEASE ASK YOURSELF THIS QUESTION. Would you willingly allow your home to be trespassed, vandalized, your goats and sheep stolen, Your vineyards ruined, your tractor and farm equipment vandalized and allow your families to be threatened and simply sit there with your hands folded as a sitting duck waiting for even worst things to happen? Would you throw up your hands and say i had better run away from my million dollar or million shekel house that I have been working so very hard for my whole adult life with the help of family and friends because no one is protecting me and when I defend myself I am called the agitator? In fact they will turn the table on me and even before I put a legal claim on them they might submit reports to the police that I was the one that vandalized their homes, stole their sheep, burnt their vineyards, destroyed their olive trees, shot them, and their grandmother and perhaps they will add that I beat their child etc, why not? it sounds good, all based on lies and fabrications and then the authorities will put me into jail and I will need to defend myself. Maybe the Police will release me that night because of lack of evidence, but not after all the fabricated charges against me are sent out to world wide press. Sometimes, they keep big mouths like me in jail or administration detention and won't even tell me the reason SO WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF THEY DID THIS TO YOU????? AND BTW...WHERE WOULD YOU RUN TO BY THE TIME THESE ANARCHIST REACH YOUR HOME???? and let us not sit smugly in the diaspora... Things are progressing at a very fast rate... Chas Veshalom... Contact Robin Ticker by email at |
|
THE FLOTILLA FARCE: FROM TURKEY, IRELAND OR CYPRUS, THE
PARTICIPANTS REEK OF HYPOCRISY
Posted by Eli E. Hertz, July 29, 2010. |
|
This was written by Danny Ayalon, Israel's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. It was published in The Wall Street Journal on July 29, 2010. |
|
A couple of years ago, a Palestinian refugee camp was encircled and laid siege to by an army of tanks and Armored Personnel Carriers. Attacks initiated by Palestinian militants triggered an overwhelming response from the army that took the life of almost 500 people, including many civilians. International organizations struggled to send aid to the refugee camps, where the inhabitants were left without basic amenities like electricity and running water. During the conflict, six U.N. personnel were killed when their car was bombed. Government ministers and spokesmen tried to explain to the international community that the Palestinian militants were backed by Syria and global jihadist elements. Al Qaeda condemned the government and the army, declaring that the attack was part of a "crusade" against their Palestinian brothers. A Palestinian refugee collects metal and plastic objects at a garbage dump in the Palestinian refugee camp of Beddawi near Tripoli. While most will assume that the events described above took place in the West Bank or Gaza, they actually took place in Lebanon in the summer of 2007, when Palestinian terrorists attacked the Lebanese Army, which struck back with deadly force. The scene of most of the fighting was the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in Northern Lebanon, which was home to the Islamist Fatah al-Islam, a group that has links with al Qaeda. At the time, there was little international outcry. No world leader decried the "prison camps" in Lebanon. No demonstrations took place around the world; no U.N. investigation panels were created and little media attention was attracted. In fact, the plight of the Palestinians in Lebanon garners very little attention internationally. Today, there are more than 400,000 Palestinians in Lebanon who are deprived of their most basic rights. The Lebanese government has a list of tens of professions that a Palestinian is forbidden from being engaged in, including professions such as medicine, law and engineering. Palestinians are forbidden from owning property and need a special permit to leave their towns. Unlike all other foreign nationals in Lebanon, they are denied access to the health-care system. According to Amnesty international, the Palestinians in Lebanon suffer from "discrimination and marginalization" and are treated like "second class citizens" and "denied their full range of human rights." Amnesty also states that most Palestinian refugees in Lebanon have little choice but to live in overcrowded and deteriorating camps and informal gatherings that lack basic infrastructure. In view of the worsening plight of the Palestinians in Lebanon, it is the height of irony that a Lebanese flotilla is organizing to leave the port of Tripoli in the next few days to bring aid to Palestinians in Gaza. According to one of the organizers, the participants are "united by a feeling of stark injustice." This attitude exposes the dishonesty of the whole flotilla exercise. Whether it is from Turkey, Ireland or Cyprus, those that participate in these flotillas reek of hypocrisy. There are currently 100 armed conflicts and dozens of territorial disputes around the world. There have been millions of people killed and hundreds of millions live in abject poverty without access to basic staples. And yet hundreds of high-minded "humanitarian activists" are spending millions of dollars to reach Gaza and hand money to Hamas that will never reach the innocent civilians of Gaza. This is the same Gaza that just opened a sparkling new shopping mall that would not look out of place in any capital in Europe. Gaza, where a new Olympic-sized swimming pool was recently inaugurated and five-star hotels and restaurants offer luxurious fare. Markets brimming with all manner of foods dot the landscape of Gaza, where Lauren Booth, journalist and "human rights activist," was pictured buying chocolate and luxurious items from a well-stocked supermarket before stating with a straight face that the "situation in Gaza is a humanitarian crisis on the scale of Darfur." No one claims that the situation in Gaza is perfect. Since the bloody coup and occupation by Hamas of Gaza in 2007, in which more than 100 Palestinians were killed, Israel has had no choice but to ensure that Hamas is not able to build up an Iranian port on the shores of the Mediterranean. Until Hamas meets the three standards laid out by the international community, namely renouncing violence, recognizing Israel's right to exist and abiding by previously signed agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, Hamas will continue to be shunned by the international community. While Israel's policy is to continue to see that all civilian needs are addressed, it can not allow Hamas to rearm and use Gaza as a base to attack Israel and beyond. For this reason, Israel initiated a blockade, fully legal under international law, to ensure that no items can be appropriated by Hamas to attack innocent civilians. Organizations that wish to join the U.N. and the Red Cross to deliver goods or aid to Gaza are welcome to do so through the Kerem Shalom crossing or even through Egyptian ports. Those that refuse and seek to break the legal blockade to boost Hamas are interested in provocation. If Israel allows these confrontational flotillas to successfully open up a shipping lane for arms smuggling for an Iranian proxy, then the region will suffer from continuous conflict. Actions that embolden the extremists will be at the cost of the moderates and this will pose a grave danger to moving the peace process forward. The latest flotilla preparing to leave from Lebanon fully exposes not only the hypocrisy but the danger of these provocative vigilante flotillas. The Lebanese flotilla, whose organizers claim injustice while ignoring the dire human rights situation of the Palestinians in Lebanon, amply demonstrate that these flotillas have nothing to do with humanita Eli E. Hertz is president of Myths and Facts, Inc. The organization's objective is to provide policymakers, national leadership, the media and the public-at-large with information and viewpoints that are founded on factual and reliable content. Contact him at today@mythsandfacts.org |
|
F-35 — TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT
Posted by UCI, July 29, 2010. |
|
This was written by Moshe Arens and appeared today in Haaretz. |
|
Just imagine Israel's position today had the Lavi fighter jet project not been canceled. Who would have believed it? Some years ago Israel was developing the world's most advanced fighter aircraft, the Lavi, while the Western world's aircraft manufacturers were beating their way to our door, eager to participate in the Lavi project, or trying to sell their competing plane to the Israel Air Force. And now Israel goes hat in hand pleading for a chance to be allowed to acquire the F-35 aircraft, at a price tag of $150 million each. But it's not only the astronomical price. Israel is told that the F-35 must be taken as is — no changes or modifications to suit Israel's specific needs, and absolutely no Israeli systems included. Take it or leave it. Just imagine Israel's position today had the Lavi project not been canceled. The IAF would be operating the world's most advanced fighter, upgraded over the years to incorporate operational experience and newer technology. Much of Israel's industry would have moved a great step ahead, Israel Aerospace Industries would have become a leading developer of fighter aircraft, and most importantly, a number of options would be open to the IAF in choosing its next fighter. 
What were the outlandish claims trumpeted by the opponents of the Lavi? The project, they said, was too big for Israel. These narrow-minded skeptics had not believed that we could convince the U.S. Congress to fund most of the project, and certainly were incapable of foreseeing Israel's economic growth in the years to come. Now they are staring at a $3 billion price tag for 20 F-35s. They said Israel should not be developing military platforms but only accessory systems to be mounted on the platforms. Now Israel will not be allowed to mount Israeli systems on the F-35. And where would we be today if we had believed that nonsense about not developing platforms? Out of the satellite-launching and unmanned-aerial-vehicle business. Where are they today, the people who at the time foolishly led the crusade against the Lavi? Surprisingly, 23 years later, some are still involved in decision-making on national security. They were against the development of the Lavi, against the development of an Israeli reconnaissance satellite, and against the development of the Arrow ballistic missile interceptor. But unfazed, they continue on. Do they admit they were mistaken? Admitting past mistakes is a rare human quality, but there are exceptions. Dan Halutz, a fighter pilot ace and former IAF commander and chief of staff, at the time like many senior IAF officers a supporter of the cancellation of the Lavi project, recognizes in his recent book that it was a mistake to cancel the project. So what's the use of crying over spilled milk? Are there alternatives to swallowing our pride and shelling out $3 billion for 20 F-35s? (The original plan had been to acquire 75 aircraft, which would have brought the price above $11 billion, but that was too expensive. ) Before we make that commitment, a little intellectual effort should be invested in looking at other options. Does Israel still have the technological capability to design a first-rate fighter aircraft? That needs to be examined in some depth. No doubt some of the capability that existed at the time of the Lavi project has been lost over the years, but as has been proved time and again, Israel has a world-class technological capability. Its success in unmanned aerial vehicles is only one of a number of examples. If it turns out that the capability to design the IAF's next fighter aircraft does exist in Israel, where could we go from there? Not to the U.S. Congress in search of funding, because we would have to remind them that 27 years ago they were fools to invest $1 billion in the development of the Lavi that Israel decided it did not want. We would have to look for partners who are prepared to invest resources in such a project, who have the necessary technological capability, and who are not involved in the F-35 project. Are there such candidates? In theory, yes. France, with a great aeronautical industry, chose not to participate in the F-35 project. India, with a considerable aeronautical capability and a meteorically growing economy, might be another candidate. And there is Russia. Perhaps none of them would be interested, and perhaps all of them would be. It's worth a try.
UCI — The Unity Coalition for Israel
(http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) — is "the largest worldwide
coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200
groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we
have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and
Secure Israel."
|
|
SHMUEL KATZ ON HENRY KISSINGER: KISSINGER'S GUILT
Posted by David Isaac, July 29, 2010. |
|
Recently declassified White House transcripts (featured in an editorial in the Israeli daily Haaretz) show former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger blaming Israel for the problems in the region, accusing Israel of being "deliberately provocative" and attempting "to create maximum commotion in the Middle East." In the newly released documents Kissinger refers to the Golan Heights as "Syrian territory" and the Syrians as "my friends." He confides to an Algerian diplomat that "a (new Arab-Israeli) war wouldn't be so bad for us. ... We could show (Israel) we are tough." Us? This strongly suggests Kissinger identified with the Arab side in the Arab-Israel conflict. While these documents do not cover the period of the 1973 war (they cover the end of the Nixon administration and eighteen months of the subsequent Ford administration), they bear out Shmuel Katz's devastating assessment of Kissinger's role during the war as crucial in turning Israel's military victory into a bitter strategic defeat. Just a year after the Yom Kippur War, in his 1974 pamphlet, "The Crisis of Israel and the West" Katz described Kissinger's actions and their repercussions. When Israel had recovered from her initial, nearly disastrous setback, the resourcefulness, and courage and qualitative superiority of her soldiers so succeeded that — in view of all the responsible military analysts — she was on the brink of achieving the greatest victory in her history. ... [T]he Israel army had created an excellent bargaining position for whatever negotiations might ensue after the Cease Fire had been formalized in a resolution by the UN Security Council. It held firmly a wide salient deep into Egyptian territory proper with the road to Cairo open. The Egyptian Third Army, one of the two Egyptian forces that had crossed over the east bank of the Suez Canal, was encircled and its supplies completely cut off. ... Twenty seven years later, in 2001, in a column "In Politics: No Friendships, Only Interests" Shmuel Katz returned to the theme of Kissinger's 1973 game plan, this time with Kissinger's own memoirs as evidence. Kissinger was determined, Katz wrote on a diplomacy that would result in Egypt's moving over from the Soviet orbit to the American. The price, as became evident, was to be a sacrifice of Israel...That is why the Egyptians to this day celebrate what they claim was a military victory over Israel. That is why, in Israel, the Yom Kippur War is remembered and felt as a bitter defeat. The harm done to Israel was and remains incalculable, not least in that sense of having been defeated. Moreover, Kissinger accomplished his goals through deception. As Katz details in "The Man with A Plan" (Oct. 23, 2003), with Israel facing a "dangerous shortage of materiel" Kissinger held up the arms shipments to Israel, claiming falsely it was Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger's doing. Kissinger then used Israel's predicament to pressure American Jewish leaders to abandon their efforts on behalf of Soviet Jewry in return for his support in expediting the delivery of the sorely needed materiel — arms and supplies which he was responsible for holding up in the first place. Kissinger also hinted to Defense Minister Moshe Dayan of a Soviet atomic threat if Israel didn't comply with his demands. Katz says this was a bald-faced lie. The Soviets had made no such threat. Katz writes: Dayan later realized that he had been hoodwinked, and indeed, on examination of Kissinger's blow-by-blow negotiations with the Russians, there is not a smidgen of a hint of an atomic threat by the Russians. In a public lecture in May 1974, Dayan declared: It is painful to think that someone who fled Nazi persecution as a young boy in 1938 should do so much damage to the Jewish State. Yet, a closer look shows that Kissinger has, at best, a tenuous connection with his Judaism. Rabbi Norman Lamm, former chancellor of Yeshiva University, spotted this early. In his article "Kissinger and the Jews" (Dec. 20, 1975), a devastating critique, he writes, "Dr. Kissinger is an illustration of how high an assimilated Jew can rise in the United States, and how low he can fall in the esteem of his fellow Jews." Lamm referred to a recent visit by Henry Kissinger and his parents to Furth, their hometown in Bavaria which they escaped before the war. They had only kind words for their native city, "but nary a word about the Holocaust, not a word about the Nazis who drove them out of that city!" On top of this, Lamm reveals that Kissinger didn't want to visit Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Memorial, during his first trip to Israel, and had to be "persuaded." He "accepted only when he was told that every other foreign minister visiting Israel had done so." This hasn't stopped Kissinger from portraying himself as one with the Jewish community, accepting awards from the Anti-Defamation League and bestowing awards on behalf of Jewish organizations like the United Jewish Appeal. Kissinger's guilt runs deep. Whether or not he feels it is another matter. Zionist writer William Mehlman offers a remarkable footnote involving Kissinger and Katz sometime after the Yom Kippur War. Kissinger got wind of a rumor — unfounded — that Shmuel had taken out a contract on his life (a fantasy Kissinger apparently believed based on the allegations about his role in delaying the resupply of munitions to Israel during the war). "Shmuel, informed of what had transpired and anxious to put the rumor to rest, arranged a face-to-face meeting with Kissinger at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York. 'From the moment I entered his suite until I left three minutes later,' Katz related to a small circle of friends in Tel Aviv, 'he did not stop shouting at me. He never gave me a chance to refute the rumor. In fact I never got a chance to say a word. Finally, I just turned around and walked out.'" Mehlman writes, "Whatever debt Henry Kissinger may or may not have felt he owed his conscience, he must surely have learned by now that it wasn't Shmuel Katz who had come to collect." Kissinger is 87. It doesn't look as if he will make amends in this world. Perhaps in the next. David Isaac is e-Editor of the Shmuel Katz
website. Contact him by email at David_Isaac@shmuelkatz.com or visit
|
|
HOW NOT TO CONDUCT DIPLOMACY: A CASE STUDY: UK PM IN TURKEY
Posted by Barry Rubin, July 29, 2010. |
|
British Prime Minister David Cameron's July 27 speech see here.) in Turkey will not live on in history. But it should, as an example of the decline of Western diplomacy, of suicide by Political Correctness, as a textbook example of how not to conduct international affairs. It crossed my mind that the speech was written by the Foreign Office for the express purpose of making Cameron look foolish, but then I realized that he and his top advisors probably have no idea why it was such a disaster. Suppose you are the British prime minister going to Turkey, or to just about any country, what should you say? The theme should be: We can cooperate and do mutually beneficial things. Here's what I can do for you, here's what I'd like you to do for me. And here's what you must not do in order to reap the benefits of my friendship and favor. Obviously, you need to dress that up in appropriate language. But everything should be conditional. The message to be delivered is that it is in your interest to respect my interests. Cameron did the precise and exact opposite. His message was: The UK needs Turkey. Turkey is wonderful. Its behavior has been perfect. We are desperate for your help. What is the effect? A man goes into a bazaar, points to a carpet and says: That is the most beautiful carpet I have ever seen. I must have it no matter what the price! How much is it? In addition, Cameron committed some other howling mistakes, several of which will amaze you. So please stick with me as I explain and document this. You won't be disappointed. And remember this is not just a matter of one speech, it is a fitting symbol for the entire contemporary Western diplomatic approach to the Middle East and much more to the world as well. By the way, it is doomed to fail miserably. Before we begin, remember that this is no longer the old Turkish Republic. Cameron is lavishing praise on an Islamist-oriented regime which has aligned itself with Iran and revolutionary Islamist groups. And all of Cameron's pandering, as if he were a Western barbarian in the court of the all-powerful Ottoman sultan, is driving a knife into the heart of a Turkish opposition which is genuinely friendly toward the West and horrified by the current regime's subversion of Turkish democracy. Cameron began by saying: "I've come to Ankara today to establish a new partnership between Britain and Turkey. I think this is a vital strategic relationship for our country." Note the cringing here. A proper prime minister might have said: "I think this is a vital strategic relationship for our countries." In other words, the speaker would stress there is a mutual benefit. Instead, this polite approach makes it sound as if Turkey is doing the United Kingdom a favor by having a strategic relationship to it while Turkey doesn't need Britain at all. And this is precisely the interpretation put on such things in the local context: The Turkish regime can take its Western alliances for granted while taking the side of the West's radical Islamist enemies. And here it is again: "People ask me why [I'm visiting] Turkey and why so soon. I'll tell you why. Because Turkey is vital for our economy. Vital for our security. And vital for our politics and diplomacy." So Turkey holds all the cards and the West can do nothing but give concessions in hope of winning favor in its eyes. One should remember that a major theme of Iran, Syria, and this Turkish regime is that nothing can be achieved without them and so the West must bow to their will and do everything they want. Cameron is feeding this monster. According to him, there are no problems with Turkey on security: "Turkey is a great NATO ally. And Turkey shares our determination to fight terrorism in all its forms — whether from Al Qaeda or the PKK. [But not, he fails to mention, from Hamas or Hizballah!] But perhaps more significant still is the fact that Turkey's unique position at the meeting point of East and West gives it an unrivalled influence in helping us get to grips with some of the greatest threats to our collective security." Look, you don't go to a country and criticize it (unless the country is Israel. Now why is that?) but you don't tell them that everything they are doing is great because if that's true they will keep on doing it and know there is no cost. Turkey under this regime is not a pro-Western state helping the West against its "Eastern" enemies — as Turkey was between, say, 1950 and 2000 — or is it a neutral meeting ground. At present, Turkey is on the enemy side. He continues: "Which Muslim majority country has a long-established relationship with Israel while at the same time championing the rights of the Palestinian people? Which European country could have the greatest chance of persuading Iran to change course on its nuclear policy?" Now this is after the Turkish regime trashed the relationship with Israel and stabbed the United States and UK in the back by cutting its own deal with Iran and even voting against sanctions at the UN. This is the policy Cameron praises! And then after all these things he adds: "Whether in Afghanistan or the Middle East, Turkey has a credibility that others in the West just can't hope to have. So I've come here to make the case for Turkey to use this credibility, to go further in enhancing our security and working for peace across our world." Does this include Turkish regime support for Hamas and Hizballah, alignment with Iran and Syria? He should be hinting gently that Turkey is losing its credibility because of the regime's behavior. And therefore Turkey needs to change its behavior, a point that the opposition will be arguing in the next election. By this time I can see the opposition tearing it hair out as another Western leader heaps praise on the regime. And have no doubt the regime will use all this in next year's elections: Extremist? Transforming Turkey toward Islamism? What do you mean? The West loves us! Cameron then goes on and makes it clear that Turkey would be doing the EU a favor by joining it, not the tiniest hint of leverage, that Turkish membership might depend on the regime's behavior. He could have said: While I, of course, support you, the path would be easier if... Followed by some polite and proper hints done with full British charm. But it gets worse. Cameron is about to insult several of Britain's closest allies, including Germany and France, by making opposition to Turkey's entrance into the EU as a form of racism and Islamophobia. For example, he says that opponents are: "The prejudiced. Those who willfully misunderstand Islam. They see no difference between real Islam and the distorted version of the extremists. They think the problem is Islam itself. And they think the values of Islam can just never be compatible with the values of other religions, societies, or cultures." All these arguments are just plain wrong. The problem precisely is the version of Islam embodied in the current Turkish government. There could be other perfectly pious Muslims ruling Turkey (and Iran, Syria, or the Gaza Strip for that matter) who would interpret Islam in a way relatively compatible with the values of other religions. But not the Islamists! He also complains of those who "see the history of our world as a clash of civilizations as a choice between East and West. They just don't get the fact that Turkey can be a great unifier. Because instead of choosing between East and West, Turkey has chosen both." But he doesn't comprehend that the current government of Turkey sees the world as a clash of civilizations. Its foreign minister even wrote a book to that effect, which has never been translated and which the regime is doing its best to conceal. This is not the Turkey of Kamal Ataturk and his successors but rather (at least temporarily) a country ruled by the successors of those who opposed Ataturk. If I were a German or French journalist my headline would be: Cameron Calls German (or French) policy bigoted and anti-Islamic. Yet Cameron sails on into even worse grounds. He actually praises a Turkish policy which has gone to the brink of war with Israel, sponsored a flotilla run by radical Islamists intending to create a violent confrontation, and is allied with a revolutionary terrorist group. One has to quote it to believe he actually said the following: "Turkey's relationships in the region, both with Israel and with the Arab world, are of incalculable value. No other country has the same potential to build understanding between Israel and the Arab world. I know that Gaza has led to real strains in Turkey's relationship with Israel. But Turkey is a friend of Israel. And I urge Turkey, and Israel, not to give up on that friendship. In other words, Turkey is 100 percent right, I have no criticism of Hamas's behavior, we should accept a permanent revolutionary Islamist, terrorist, genocidal, statelet on the Mediterranean. No problem. And we can ignore the Turkish regime's pro-Hamas policy and provocative behavior because without abandoning that approach Turkey can still play a productive role! This is the diplomatic equivalent of insane behavior on Cameron's part. And does Israel want this regime to mediate between it and the Palestinians? Even the Palestinian Authority doesn't want that: it knows that the Turkish regime is allied with its Hamas rivals, for goodness sakes! Doesn't Cameron know this? I don't want to take up too much of your time but I cannot let this next gem pass. True, Cameron urged Turkey to continue internal reforms (but there's no hint of the anti-democratic nature of the regime's manipulation of such reforms, for example, to seize control of the courts) and the massive repression of dissidents. He suggests that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and he even criticizes the Turkey-Iran deal. But note the illogical leap: "Even if Iran were to complete the deal proposed in their recent agreement with Turkey and Brazil, it would still retain around fifty percent of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium. So we need Turkey's help now in making it clear to Iran just how serious we are about engaging fully with the international community. That meeting is a conference of Iran's supporters! Why would it lead Iran in the right direction? How about Turkey's opposition to sanctions? And again note the beggar's worldview: "We need Turkey's help..." Why should Turkey help? What will you give the regime in exchange for its alleged help? What behavior will you overlook in exchange for its alleged help? This regime wants to help Iran, not against Iran. Finally, remember that Cameron is a Conservative, the successor of Winston Churchill. That's how deep the appeasement disease has penetrated the Western ruling class. Andrew Sullivan Attacks Me Without Bothering to Consider What I Wrote
One of the amazing things about the intellectual scene today is that people attack you without any reference to what you actually say. It is as if you were talking to someone deaf who has his hearing aid turned off. You want to explain that there must be a misunderstanding only to find that the person doesn't care: he just wants to scream insults at you so that nobody actually considers whether you are making an accurate point. When I was growing up, someone considered your actual arguments and responded to them with rational arguments of their own. Some of us still do that. I wrote a serious and sober analysis of what was wrong with the UK prime minister's speech in Turkey, focusing on the basic misunderstanding of proper diplomatic leverage. Instead, Andrew Sullivan writes: (see here.) "Barry Rubin joins the chorus from the neocon right claiming that 'Turkey is on the enemy side.'" Let's consider this sentence. First, rather than argue the facts he merely throws in two words intended to get people to demonize me and not listen to anything I say: neocon right. Hey, nothing more need be said! But the central question should be whether the original statement was true or not, right? Then there's that word "joins." I've been studying Turkey now for 35 years. I've been there about 25 times. Regarding the direction of the regime, I've been saying the same thing for about two years, long before there was a collapse of Turkish-Israel relations. If I've joined anyone it's the Turkish socialists and liberals. Here's one of many examples: a Turkish woman from the left who angrily told me, "We've been warning the West about these people for years and the West just won't listen." In fact, though, I think I was the first person to say that the Turkish regime (NOT Turkey) has gone over to the other side. I have written literally dozens of articles proving it. I have quoted Iran's leader and Syria's government as having publicly stated it. Might Sullivan want to consult the evidence I have compiled? Of course not. And then he makes a remarkably revealing illogical argument: "It was once a given on the right that keeping Turkey close to the West was essential in defusing Islamism and winning the war on terror. But once Turkey took on Israel, that ended, because the war many neocons are waging is for Israel, right or wrong, not the West at large." This has an implication of antisemitism, doesn't it? He's saying that people are only angry at Turkey's rulers because they have fallen out with Israel, referring mainly to the flotilla issue. This makes me think of the argument in the 1930s that people were only critical of Germany because they were Jews or only cared about Jewish interests. Yes, it has been a given on both left, center, and right that keeping Turkey close to the West was essential. Yet what if the Turkish regime is no longer close to the West? Everyone's opinion is still the same, it's the situation that's changed. To ignore that change is incredibly dangerous. Indeed, I'd say that Turkey's change of sides (perhaps temporary) is the biggest defeat suffered by the West in the Middle East since the Iranian revolution. So how to keep Turkey close to the West? Act to constrain the current regime and, in appropriate ways of course, to help the opposition win the elections a year from now. Cheering the current regime, letting it claim that the West accepts its policies, assists that increasingly dictatorial government to remain in power. And if it does fall as I hope? Oh, dear! Then Turkey would have a socialist prime minister instead of a right-wing Islamist one. Seems to me that's what Western liberals and the left should prefer. As for the claim that it's all about Israel, in fact, I have been talking for months about: --Internal repression in Turkey, including the arrests of hundreds of peaceful dissidents on charges of attempting to overthrow the government with violence. Turks have been writing eloquently about this issue. Yet none of this matters, right? It's only all about Israel, we are supposed to believe, and talking about everything else is just an excuse! Sullivan has, however, taught me something important: why such people must keep harping on Israel. Forget about the canary in the coal mine analogy. The Israel card's use is to make people blind, to shut them up, to throw out every other issue and piece of evidence. They hope that anti-Israel passion (plus dark hints of a Jewish conspiracy) will keep people from actually looking at what's happening. In the phrase of Professor Richard Landes, Israel is a weapon of mass destruction. And the Jews have filled this function many times before in history. On top of this, my article's theme and tone are quite different from his claims. Here are the key sentences from my article: "Suppose you are the British prime minister going to Turkey, or to just about any country. What should you say? The theme should be: We can cooperate and do mutually beneficial things. Here's what I can do for you; here's what I'd like you to do for me. And here's what you must not do in order to reap the benefits of my friendship and favor. Does that sound like a call for war? Mr. Sullivan: There is something in diplomacy between war and appeasement. It is called carrots and sticks, costs and benefits, quid pro quo. Cameron's speech was a mess because he abandoned that principle and resorted only to simple-minded flattery. Middle Eastern peoples — Muslim or otherwise — know what that signals: weakness, which invites ridicule and aggressiveness. Sullivan also ignores my point — which I think is rather significant — that Cameron foolishly insulted France and Germany by strongly implying that the only reason they oppose Turkey's EU membership is because they are bigots. If Sullivan had been Britain's prime minister I guess he would have called them "neocon rightists." If Cameron had not mentioned Israel at all I would have written precisely the same article on all these points. Sullivan continued: "Keep it up, prime minister. Advance the interests of Britain, and resist the war of civilizations the far right wants to gin up. We will only defeat Islamism if we keep an open hand stretched to Islam. Isolating and demonizing Turkey's evolution as a regional Muslim power — prepared to be Israel's ally if Israel stops the persecution and colonization of the Palestinans — is about as dumb a geo-strategic move as one could imagine." The issue is not a "war of civilizations" but a war of ideologies. Is Sullivan really so dense that he doesn't understand that the people most similar to him in Turkey hate and fear the current regime? Doesn't Sullivan understand that the governments of most Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East don't want the West to support the Islamists? (Here's a list: Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait. And even the Palestinian Authority and the democratic forces in Lebanon. These are almost all Muslims, too, aren't they? And then let's add the majority of Muslims in Turkey and in Iran as well!) Turkey is not evolving into being a regional Muslim power as some kind of national project. This is in fact the policy of one party in Turkey which has less than 30 percent support according to recent public opinion polls, with probably twice as many Turks favoring non-Islamist opposition parties. And what does deifying the current Turkish government have to do with keeping an "open hand stretched to Islam"? Almost all Turks are Muslims, they just aren't political Islamists. That's why the West gets along with Egypt, Jordan, and even Saudi Arabia, for example, who are all Muslims but not on the side of Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah. It was a Socialist leader who once said that antisemitism was the socialism of fools. Today, the insane use of Israel as the cause of all issues and problems is the tool used to make fools on the left support the most reactionary forces on the Middle Eastern extreme right. And then, to make it laughable, they do so in the name of fighting evil rightists! Incidentally, don't think I didn't notice Sullivan's sleazy little trick: he didn't link to my article so those reading his blog item could easily check out what I actually said rather than what he claimed. That's the kind of behavior that tells a great deal about Sullivan's intellectual dishonesty. Update: Sullivan apparently read this article and added the link. I hope he learned something. Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and "Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press). His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html. Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com |
|
STATUS OF ARAB 'REFUGEES' IN PA; CNN BIAS ON ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT; BRITAIN ON EU, TURKEY, GAZA, ISRAEL
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 29, 2010. |
|
P.A. NAMES SUMMER CAMP AFTER TERRORIST The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) has named a new summer camp, in Bethlehem, after terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who led perhaps the worst terrorist attack against Israel. His squad hijacked a civilian bus, and murdered 37 passengers, including 12 children. This was the second P.A. camp in Bethlehem named after Mughrabi. Schools, youth centers, and landmarks also have been named after her. She is a major Palestinian Arab heroine for her attack on civilians. P.A. Deputy Minister of Education and Sports explained that P.A. summer camps teach, "through precept and example about the importance of dialog and tolerance in life." One Voice Palestine, which supports the camp, states that its members are "fed up with the ongoing conflict" and "ready and eager to support a serious process" for peace. The Fatah Party, which Abbas chaired, called Mughrabi's attack "the most glorified sacrifice action in the history of the Palestinian-Israeli struggle" [Al-Ayyam, July 13, 2008]. "The PA celebrated the 31st anniversary of her killings with an hour-long TV special that opened with the narrator glorifying the attack." (IMRA, 7/29/10 from Palestinian Media Watch. We cited other examples in earlier articles). Doesn't the glorification of terrorism set a precept about the importance of intolerance? Doesn't commemoration of a terrorist contradict the notion of an interest in peace? Some readers accuse Israel of being terrorist and of indoctrinating in terrorism, but give no evidence except when they mis-define "terrorism." Here are examples of the P.A and its organizations having committed terrorism and indoctrinating in it by celebrating it. The accusers of Israel ignore these actual examples of terrorism. Do they really object to terrorism?
STATUS OF ARAB 'REFUGEES' IN P.A. The usual definition of "refugee," according to the American Heritage College Dictionary, is "one who flees in search of refuge, as in times of war. The flight usually means from the country. That definition is not applied to Palestinian Arabs. The ones who went to Gaza, Judea, Samaria, and perhaps Jordan did not leave the area of the original Palestine Mandate, the nearest they had to a country [although at that time, most were relatively recent immigrants from surrounding countries, many so recently arrived as under the standard UN definition not to be considered refugees for that reason, too]. Most did not flee in search of refuge from war, their Arab leaders, domestic and foreign, ordered them out. A chief reason was not to keep the Jewish state, which was not expelling the bulk of them, form seeming humane, reasonable, and legitimate. Most of the people now in the refugee camps did not flee from anything. They are descendants of the Arabs who originally left. 20,000 such people live in a one-square kilometer Balata refugee camp within Nablus, in Judea-Samaria. In "quasi-apartheid" fashion, the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) does not let them build outside the camp, vote in Nablus elections, get municipal funds for roads and sanitation, and attend city schools. The camp children attend separate schools, provided by UNRWA, much of which is subsidized by the U.S.. (Sol Stern, senior fellow at Manhattan Institute, in Israel Resource News, 7/29/10) I consulted Arline Kushner, senior analyst at the Center for Near East Policy Research, where she has written major reports on UNRWA. I asked whether the P.A. applies the same policy to other refugee camps. Kushner said that the policy has exceptions. Gaza has more non-UNRWA schools than UNRWA schools. Some of the residents of refugee camps vote. More live outside the camps and even run businesses, but they usually live nearby, so they can enter the camps and avail themselves of services meant for refugees. In general, however, the P.A. rejects responsibility for refugee descendants Refugees have acknowledged in correspondence Kushner has seen that they willingly stay cloistered for the cause of entering Israel. That is one reason they oppose integration in the Palestinian Authority. Once they rioted at the prospect of becoming part of a new Arab state in the P.A. (e-mail, 7/29). Although the P.A. claims to represent these descendants of refugees, it treats them almost as enemy aliens. That is a hidden scandal. It gives critics of Israel, on the basis of an ostensible concern for Palestinian Arabs, something to criticize the P.A. for. Israel, by contrast, lets Arab citizens vote, move, and receive national funds for Arab cities in Israel and for Arab citizens in mixed Israeli cities.
MORE CNN BIAS ON ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT Today, not long after CNN fired a senior editor for bias on the Arab-Israel conflict, senior international correspondent Ben Wedeman presented his own bias. This was on Twitter, but the pattern of his reporting indicates that bias influences his reporting. 
Mr. Wedeman commended as "excellent," an article by the "harshly anti-Israel" Professor Juan Cole. Prof. Cole's article claimed that Israel's "isolation derives from Israeli policies, of illegal blockades ... and systematic land theft and displacement of occupied civilians under its control, along with aggressive war." Israel's wars resulted from Arabs committing kidnapping, bombardment, invasion, and other acts of war, not wanton aggression. (For the legality of the blockade, click here. What systematic land theft and displacement of civilians? I have documented extensive land theft by Arabs.) In his official capacity, Wedeman asserts that Israel prevents peace — PM Netanyahu refuses to make "confidence-building" measures, refuses to enter direct negotiations, and holds eastern Jerusalem that Wedeman writes belongs to the Arabs. Here, CAMERA, the source for this piece, documents the sacrifices Israel made for hoped confidence-building, including roadblock removal and construction freeze, the many invitations PM Netanyahu gave for direct negotiations rejected by Abbas, and the importance of eastern Jerusalem to the Jewish people. It is a mixed area under Israeli sovereignty. [There is no legal basis for assuming the area belongs to the Arabs.] In 2008, Wedeman asserted that Israel's security fence squeezed the tourist trade almost entirely out of Bethlehem's economy. Actually, since the fence was built, in 2005, the Christmas pilgrimage seasons in Bethlehem rose greatly. [Not because of the fence. I had reported special efforts by Israel to boost that tourism and facilitate entry of Christians to their holy sites.] Apparently, Wedeman's bias misinforms CNN news coverage (CAMERA, 7/29)
BRITAIN ON EU, TURKEY, GAZA, ISRAEL Britain's PM David Cameron visited Turkey and made these points on Turkey, Gaza, and Israel: 1. Britain signed an agreement with Turkey on trade and security and wants Turkey admitted into the EU for regional trade and security and to have more influence over Europe; 2. Turkey and Israel should not abandon their friendship; 3. Israel's attack on the flotilla was "completely unacceptable." Israel should end restrictions on Gaza, so Gaza does not remain "a prison camp." Some EU members oppose Turkey's admission because of what they consider its poor human rights record (Lawrence Norman, Joe Parkinson, Wall St. J., 7/28/10). Elsewhere, PM Cameron was said to have acknowledged, in generalized wording, Israel's security concerns. Considerations Cameron omitted: 1. Whether the EU needs the Islamist influence that Turkey now exerts. European leaders now speculate that their civilization is at a tipping point. Most of these leaders put it as forecasting a Muslim majority. Considering how far Europe is bending with the small Muslim minority, it would not take a majority. 2. Cameron thinks Turkey-Israel relations are up to both sides. What chance has such relations, as Turkey turns Islamist? What future for Turkey-EU relations? 3. The cause-and-effect of the Gaza-Israel problem: (a) Israelis evacuated from Gaza; (b) Hamas made war on Israel; (c) Israel has a legal, partial blockade to keep out heavy arms and terrorists; (d) If IHH merely were charitable, it could have brought goods to Israel to be inspected and trans-shipped to Gaza, but instead it tried to run and therefore ruin the legal blockade. If IHH were successful, heavy arms and terrorists would enter freely; (e) So the IDF enforced the blockade; (f) Radicals attacked the IDF troops. 4. Turkey has two main problems with human rights: (a) Treatment of Kurds; and (b) Military intervention against a government moving to overturn the Constitution. The EU and U.S. condemned Turkey on both counts. That helped paralyze the military. Turkish Islamists now are moving more readily against freedom of press and speech, the independent judiciary, and secular, non-radical indoctrination.
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
NEW OFFICE BEGINS INVESTIGATING LOST PROPERTY OF ME JEWS
Posted by Daily Alert, July 29, 2010. |
|
This was written by Benjamin Joffe-Walt. Jerusalem Post staff contributed to this report. |
|
Pensioners Ministry: Jewish property in Arab countries valued in billions, and is worth 50% more than the property of Palestinian refugees. A new department set up by Ministry of Pensioners Affairs to manage the legal claims of Israeli Jews of Middle Eastern descent who lost their property when they left countries throughout the region has begun collecting information. The office will help identify, locate and seek compensation for the assets of the more than one million Jews who came to Israel from Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria. The initiative follows a law approved earlier this year by the Knesset requiring the compensation of Jews from Arab countries and Iran to be included in any peace negotiations. "The Palestinians have been collecting evidence of their losses for many years," said Yoni Itzhak, a spokesman for the Pensioners Affairs Ministry. "So we are not waiting until there is a negotiation for a peace accord. We need to be prepared, so that if there are negotiations and the Palestinians say, 'We are owed a few billion dollars,' We will say, 'OK, no problem,' and be ready with a much higher figure of what we are owed." The ministry says that as of 2007 "the estimated value of Jewish property in Arab countries is 50 percent more than the value of the property of Palestinian refugees and is valued at billions of dollars." The ministry did not provide specific figures. Following the establishment of the state, most Muslim states declared or supported war against Israel, and the status of Jews in these countries became threatened. According to estimates by the United Nations and a number of civil society organizations, during Israel's first decade about 265,000 Jews left Morocco, 140,000 left Algeria, 135,000 left Iraq, 120,000 left Iran, 103,000 left Tunisia, 75,000 left Egypt, 63,000 left what is now Yemen, 38,000 left Libya, 30,000 left Syria and 5,000 left Lebanon. More than half a million additional Jews have left these countries since. Most of the emigres headed to Israel, and just a few thousand Jews remain in the Arab world today. "People often forget that there is also the Jewish side to the refugee story in the Middle East," Itzhak said. "Almost every Jew who left Iran or an Arab country can tell you a whole story about what they left. These people left their things, their houses, their institutions — in some cases because of threats and laws that forced them out. So just like the Palestinians tell everyone that they have the keys to their old homes, we have our keys as well." The government refers to Jewish emigres from Middle Eastern countries as "refugees", but whether these Jews emigrated for economic or ideological reasons, or were pushed out of their home countries by anti-Semitic and political persecution, is a matter of debate. What is clear is that Jews who emigrated from Muslim countries throughout the Middle East and North Africa left extensive assets in their home countries, from houses, stores and businesses to land and bank accounts. Estimates of the total value of Jewish personal and communal assets left in Muslim countries range from $1 billion to more than $100b. Israeli Jews of Middle Eastern descent have been asked by the new department to report the details of their lost assets. "We have already collected evidence from a few thousand people, but it was being done by a tiny branch of a small department," Itzhak said. "Now we have set up an entire department to deal with this issue, and we are putting the pedal to the metal are in the process of identifying, registering and assessing the value of everyone's lost assets." The ministry is also searching public archives for documentary evidence of Jewish communal assets, such as synagogues, hospitals, event halls, retirement homes and ritual baths, which were abandoned when Jews left for Israel. The new department is also preparing a case to demand damages for discrimination against Jews in the Muslim countries, such as Jews who were prevented from entering educational institutions, Jews who were stripped of their citizenship or other freedoms, and Jews who endured pogroms. The department plans to collect compensation for Jews of Middle Eastern descent who were never paid their pensions, purchased plots in graveyards, anti-Semitic dismissals, etc. Once all the evidence is collected, the ministry plans to prepare a legal case for each Jewish Israeli individual of Middle Eastern descent to demand compensation through a process of indirect negotiations with the relevant countries, almost none of which have diplomatic relations with Israel. The initiative comes against the backdrop of longstanding and extensive Palestinian claims regarding their losses in the War of Independence. The degree to which these Arab fled voluntarily or were driven out by pre-state Jewish forces is a matter of extensive debate among Israeli, Palestinian and international historians. Following the War of Independence and the subsequent establishment of the state, the Arab refugees were not allowed to return and the government took control of somewhere between 2,000 and 16,500 square kilometers of abandoned or confiscated land, according to differing government estimates at the time. Following the passage of the nonbinding UN General Assembly Resolution 194 calling for Palestine refugees wishing to "live at peace with their neighbors" to be allowed to return to their homes, Israel passed a series of laws to formalize state ownership over absentee land and property. "Palestinian refugees' rights, including the right of return, is absolute and recognized under international law," said Nasim Ahmed, senior researcher at the London-based Palestinian Return Centre, which advocates for the rights of Palestinian refugees and their descendants. "We believe the right of return and claims for compensation by Palestinian refugees is exclusive and cannot be compromised by another claim. We also believe that to dissolve the Palestinian claim is a political tactic which undermines international law." 10. Jews have lived in Palestine for 2000+ years * Author: Denise * Country: USA * 08/20/2010 15:14 RE "No one asked the Jews to come to Palestine." Jews have lived in the area called Palestine for 2000+ years. They are indigenous to the area. Back in the 1940s Jews who lived in Palestine were called "Palestinians". The Palestine Post was a Jewish newspaper. The Palestine Brigade was all Jewish. 9. For Algeria the answer is simple * Author: Mourad
won't happen and no algerian will accept it so you wasting your time we are not easy and we won't give an inch of property nor a penny of our wealth to these so called immigrant 8. no 4 * Author: hebrew prophet
Hey Palestinian Joe in Ireland and his fellow Palestinian Steve in the US Jews don,t need permission from anyone including illiterate camel herders from Arabia to claim what was and is rightfully theirs,the ancient land of Israel has been a Jewish ancestral homeland millienia before Islam raised it,s fascist head and Jews who lost their land ,possesssions etc,due to Islam forcing them out of their countries of birth can and will claim from those Muslim states that stole their original properties ,whether you two Palestinians like it or not ,inshallah? 7. @No 5 * Author: Rick
You've got it exactly backwards, "Jewish land will no longer be usurped by anyone". Now go back to your pub and try not to hit anybody when you drunkenly throw darts. 6. You missed Libya in your list * Author: Albert Reingewirtz
I remember the camps of tents of Jewish refugees from all Arab lands and Persia. I remember the Musrara flooding Jews from Iraq on their beds inside tents while the water reached their mattresses. Where was the UN dedicating an organization for the Jewish refugees? Not a penny from the UN then for Jews but UNWRA was created for the Arab refugees as they were called before the Palestinian nation was invented in the 60's. Jews lived in those lands at least 1000 years before any Arab came out of Arabia and yet communities in existence since antiquity are non-longer. An account is overdue! 5. Property of ME Jews * Author: Joe Kelsall
I am not sure of the point of this misleading article. I acre of land in Los Angeles is worth hundreds of times the price of 1 acre in rural Alabama. We are not comparing like with like and I hope whoever is intended to be confused by this information takes this into account. Palestinian land is NOT for sale — at ANY PRICE! 4. Go back * Author: Steve Benassi
No one asked the Jews to come to Palestine. 3. IT WAS ABOUT TIME THAT THESE FACTS WERE COLLECTED * Author: JKF
These records need to form part of the recorded historical evidence; they need to be entered, into the pertinent international annals; and also they need to be distributed to pertinent organizations, that will expose the facts on these unjust persecutions. These records need to be placed alongside the recods of the forced displacement of the Jewish communities, and not just from Arab countries, but also from other countries that carrie out significant progroms. Claims for restitution need to be made. 2. Refugees * Author: Ben Azzai
I hope you will include Jews who came to France, the UK and USA as well. They left Arab lands and Iran because they felt endangered. World Jewry worked flat out to help Jewish refugees. I'm old enough to remember the Yom Kippur appeals to raise funds for these refugees. We never thought of locking them in refugee 'prison camps' as political pawns as the Arab states and UN did with Arab refugees. The Arabs had about 25 countries, but no room to accept fellow Arabs in need of support. 1. Restitution (Part 1) * Author: Michael Davison
Mr. Nasim Ahmed is full of shit. The "right of return" is far from being "absolute", since it is conditional on the returnees being willing to live at peace with their neighbors. Estimates of Jewish losses calculated on the same basis as Palestinian losses comes in at around five times the sum total the Palestinians are claiming. This makes sense when you consider that most of the Jewish population in Arab lands were urban merchants, business owners, doctors, lawyers, bank managers and other high-income professionals, while Palestinians were mostly argarians or small businessmen. |
|
ISRAEL AIR FORCE RESCUE UNIT DESCRIBES SEARCH FOR COMRADES IN ROMANIA
Posted by Daily Alert, July 29, 2010. |
|
This was written by Hanan Greenberg for Ynet. IDF rabbinate completes identification process; bodies to be flown back within hours; rescuers recount harsh weather, tough terrain, difficult emotions |
|
ROMANIA — IDF rabbinate representatives completed the process of identifying the six bodies of the IDF soldiers who lost their lives in the helicopter crash in Romania. The victims' families have been notified. Earlier, members of Rescue Unit 669 recounted the harsh terrain and weather conditions and difficult emotions they endured during the search for their comrades. The air force is ready to fly the bodies home, apparently within a few hours. The funeral dates are expected to be announced later. The searches continued over the last 24 hours, leaving rescuers exhausted at the crash site. "We had to go back and forth over the site to find all remains," said one officer. "It was impossible to stand on the steep slope, so we used ropes." The rescuers said the weather was poor. On Wednesday afternoon torrential rain fell, making their work even harder. In order to reach the crash site, the unit's members, numbering some 50 soldiers, had to climb for an hour and a half from where they had been dropped off by the helicopter. "It was a hard physical effort, combined with a desire to get to the site and start work," the officer said. "We had to climb in a stream bed," a team member told Ynet. "We took ladders to climb over the waterfalls and used ropes to avoid slipping on the rocks. We covered an area of some 80 meters by 30 meters (260 x 98 feet), on a slope of 60%, so in many places it was impossible to stand. We spread ropes over the whole area, and in some places worked while harnessed to the ropes. Every few minutes there was a downpour which completely soaked us." 
"It was very important to us to bring them home," he continued. "Nobody stopped in the middle of the work to rest even though we spent 36 hours getting organized and flying, during which we slept maybe two hours. We had to remind people to drink water." "We are used to saving lives on rescue operations," he explained. "In this case we were dealing with bodies but we understood how important it was to bring them back to their families. At some point, you hope you won't find them dead, but you realize that success in this operation is to find the bodies and send them home, even if it's in coffins. That's the mission." 'We wanted to get them home' "This is awful work, because you don't want to miss anything, so you go back and forth over the area," A. said. "We lifted up metal plates, engines, and the helicopter's ramp to check underneath. The weather was particularly difficult, and the fear that stones would fall on us from above. We succeeded in our mission, but I suspect things will come up again when we get back to base." When they arrived at the crash site they saw the charred remains of the helicopter. "We were given instructions and guidance by the rabbis," one soldier said. "We looked for bodies in every possible place, including under the metal remains. It wasn't easy but it was clear to us what our work was. Everyone hoped we might return with good news but we rapidly understood this wouldn't happen. In the end we just wanted to get them all home, even in coffins." 
"We also gathered up parts of the helicopter," he continued. "We worked without break, almost without resting. Then we picked everything up, dozens of kilos, and carried it all back to the helicopter." The unit members feel they have completed the mission well, but difficult emotions remain. "Things will come up again in the future," they said. Some were reminded of the explosion of the armored personnel carrier on Gaza's Philadelphi Route in 2004, when hundreds of soldiers scoured the area looking for body parts — under the assumption that nothing should be left. "We lifted every part, looked under every stone," they said. "We knew there was a danger of bad weather and stones that could roll down from above, but we kept our eyes on our mission." In the late afternoon Wednesday, the officers evaluated whether it would be necessary to bivouac overnight. Towards 5 pm, it was decided to call off the search and return to the air force base in Romania. But for the soldiers the mission is still not complete. They are now waiting for the rabbis to identify the bodies, and the mission will be over only when they get back to Israel, they say. Attila Somfalvi also contributed to this report |
|
ESSAYS FROM THE IGBO ISRAEL WEBSITE
Posted by Remy Ilona, July 28, 2010. |
|
WHO IS IGBO? When I ponder over this question what comes to my mind is principally; what is the origin of the Igbos? For certain reasons which I will mention later I have always tried to solve puzzles by first of all looking at the history of the puzzles. An Igbo as understood presently is someone from the following Nigerian states: Anambra, Enugu, Imo, Abia, Ebonyi. And some indigenes of Delta State. I would also say that the Igbos also include some people that are indigenous in Edo and Rivers states. The Igbos in all the mentioned states inhabit a contiguous territory. I do not think that some people in the Rivers, Edo, Delta States, and even a tiny minority from Anambra State will view my submission agreeably. This is because huge numbers of people who bear Igbo names, speak the Igbo language, and practice Igbo culture in the afore-mentioned states have openly declared that though 'we speak Igbo, bear Igbo names, we are not Igbos'. These people actually speak Igbo. Close examination of their cultural practices reveal that Omenana; the Igbo culture, is also their culture. And clearly culture, and language which is an aspect of culture determines what or who one is; i.e, ones origins. So why do we have people who are Igbos disowning their identity? I would need a book to answer the question, but because this is a newspaper I'll try to compress my answer. I will get back to the question later, but for now I will try to work on what the tribal origin of the Igbos is, with the objective of trying to discover why there is so much complications with the issue of the Igbo identity. The Igbos have generally not taken their tribal identity serious. Igbo laxity has created room for certain people who do not know the importance of history, to introduce dangerous and mischievous distortions, and even fabrications into Igbo history. Presently we have Igbo "historians" who have without a shred of evidence "proven" that the Igbos existed before the biblical Adam did. And they were scholarly, and bold enough to admit that they got this information from Ile Ife. And that they were motivated by Afro-centrism, and black-colour pride. We also have some who say that the biblical Melchizedek was Igbo, and that it was he who taught Abraham, the Hebrew patriarch the importance of monotheism. Even though some of these scholars lack the basic skills (knowledge of the Hebrew language, Hebrew culture and history); that one requires to understand Hebrew sources, among which is the principal book (the Tanakh), that talked about Adam, Melchizedek, and Abraham; they have rushed to the press with their 'great discoveries'. Some Igbos have also claimed that they originated from Bini. A cursory comparison of the claimants', and the Bini cultures reveals that the claimants were motivated to make the false claim purely by the desire to make mischief, and inferiority complex. Distortions and fabrications should be kept out of history. Many of the conflicts that have shocked the world, and cost humanity dearly; especially the religious ones, wouldn't have arisen if recorders had written exactly what happened. Many chroniclers have written what did not happen, as what happened, and have led many gullible people into basing their faith on empty lies, and emotions. So, if the Igbo people have not treated their history as something that is sacrosanct, should it be surprising that some of the Igbos from Edo, Delta, and Rivers, deny that they are Igbos today? It shouldn't be surprising for many reasons, among which is the one that the groups that deny, do so because they are confused. And the second one which is that they learnt the fine art of self-denial from their kinsmen-those that admit that they are Igbos today. I will throw more light on what I'm getting at with the following illustration by talking about two episodes that were narrated in Things Fall Apart, and No Longer At Ease; two seminal works by that most clever Igbo; Chinua Achebe. Okonkwo; that great Igbo freedom fighter who stood against desecration of the Igbos through desecration of Omenana, and seizure of the Igbos' freedom by the invading British, died in the struggle. And his first son, Nwoye who had joined the enemies, refused to attend his funeral. And when Nwoye's wife died, the son, Obi, repeated what Nwoye did, by not attending the funeral of his mother, Nwoye's wife. The Igbos from Edo, Delta, and Rivers, are simply repeating what the Igbos as a people have been doing. The Igbos generally act as if they feel that where they came from is not important. The self-denying Igbos from the afore-mentioned states say that they are not Igbos. In other words; just as the Igbos generally do not attach much importance to their Israelitishness, so do some of the Igbos of Edo, Delta, and Rivers, whom I regard as self-denying Igbos feel that they are not Igbo, and say so. So at last who are the Igbos? Two Igbos; Peter Opara and Gavriel Ogugua, had after attending a meeting of the World Igbo Congress, visited the officials of the American Jewish Committee, and had told them that: '... Igbos feel a spiritual bond with Jews because, Igbos have not been able to trace their origin back to anywhere else other than Israel"1. If sharing of a similar culture is indicative of a common origin, I would agree with Opara, and Ogugua, and I agree with them. Credible and authentic research about Igbo origins have pointed only at Israel, as the place of origins of the Igbos. If this is an established fact, and I say that it is; because studies and comparison of Igbo culture (Omenana), and Judaism (the culture of Israel), asusu Igbo (the Igbo language), and Ibrit (Hebrew language), the Igbo and the Jewish DNA's, and Igbo history, have all indicated that the Igbos and the Jews were originally one people, and that the Hebrew culture which is the basis of their culture evolved in ancient Israel, why haven't the Igbos done the proper thing? The proper thing should be to introduce into the curricula of the schools and other institutions that impart knowledge to the Igbos the information about the Igbos origins. But in the curricula of all the schools, and the programmes of all the other institutions that cater to the Igbos educational needs such as the churches, which have existed for decades, and the synagogues which have started growing among the Igbos, information about the Igbos origins is totally absent. This is also what obtains in most of the print and electronic mass media. Save the National Times newspaper which has been impressive, and the Sun which reports on the subject occasionally, a follower of news is not likely to get enough information about where the Igbos originated from. And the Igbo organizations! Only the Igbo Israel Union (Society), and the Igbo Origin and Culture Research Society have prioritized the very important subject of the Igbos origins. So in the final analysis I say that the Igbos are the descendant of Israel that migrated from the Holy Land, through North Africa, the Sahara desert, and resettled in the rain forests of what became the South-East of Nigeria.
RECOVERY OF IGBO-ISRAEL From: Tuesday, January 6, 2009 Many Igbos are beginning to realize that the Igbo people will only be happy and fulfilled when they do teshuvah, return, and begin to practice Igbo-Jewish culture, which in asusu Igbo (Igbo language) is called Omenana. We already have a large body of literature about how the Dispersion, the Exile, and the relocation of the Igbo-Jews to the forests (ime ofia) of West Africa isolated the Igbos from other umu Yisrael (children of Israel). And how the Slave Trade and colonialism devastated the Igbo society, and paved the way for the colonialists to demonize Omenana, and attempt to replace it with the colonialists' culture which is at best very strange to the Igbo-Jews and thus unworkable. We also have information about how some Igbo-Jews thought erroneously that Omenana could be discarded, the colonialist's culture adopted, and the Igbo-Jews still thrive. Evidence exists that many Igbo-Jews entertained such thoughts, and even took steps to jettison Omenana. However the effort only resulted in disappointment, misery and unhappiness, because the Holy One of Yisrael, the God of Abraham, known by the Igbo-Jews as Chukwu Abiama made it clear in Deuteronomy 28, that happiness and well-being for Israel lies in practicing the culture embedded in the Tora(Omenana), and unhappiness and ruin, in jettisoning the Tora. It is the realization of many Igbo-Jews that the Igbo society can only be happy if and when it practices Tora/Omenana that we want to talk about here. Since some decades this realization that the colonialists' stories and models couldn't be absolute truths nor good for Igbo-Jews has been with many Igbo-Jews. And many have taken steps to return to Tora/Omenana. We can't pretend at this stage that we have a complete record of all the Igbo-Jews who have taken steps to do teshuvah, and how they have tried to achieve the return. Accordingly we'll discuss only the most high profile cases here.
The Igbo Sabbatharians Some three to five decades ago, some Igbos who had pass through the indoctrination of the colonialists just like other Igbos somehow realized that the Laws, regulations, etc of God-set out minutely in what they know as the 'Old Testament' couldn't be a shadow of things to come. That for a people (the colonialists) who brought laws when they came to Igboland to teach that the era of the Laws (of God for that matter) has passed is grand fraud. To head back to Law, and its observance they began the Sabbatharian movement. This movement believed that the Laws of God are alive, and that their observance will give the Igbos order in their society. Definitely what they began was a return to Tora/Omenana. After all what is Omenana? Omenana if translated to English is: doing (keeping) on the 'Land' the commandments that God gave Israel. Our work on the Sabbatharians: purchase the hard copy of the monograph in Nigeria. Contact: 080 6530 0351, 080 2223 7028. igboisraelpublishing@gmail.com, remy.ilona@gmail.com, drcaliben@yahoo.com Contact Chukwukaodinaka Remy Ilona at remy.ilona@gmail.com
or at 08065300351 by telephone.
Visit his website at
by
|
|
THE OLYMPIA WA FOOD CO-OP JOINS LONG, TRAGIC HISTORY OF HATRED
TOWARD ISRAEL
Posted by Edward Alexander, July 28, 2010. |
|
Olympia's Food Co-op has grandly announced its intention to boycott Israeli products unless that country disbands itself as a Jewish state. To earn a place for its products on co-op shelves, Israel must forfeit its right to defend itself by tearing down its security fence and must bring back the Arab refugees who, in an entirely self-inflicted calamity, fled in 1947-48 rather than accept the U.N.'s two-state solution. This is a policy of politicide: Israel may not exist as a Jewish state. The co-op does not require the numerous Islamic regimes or Christian states to justify a place for their products on the sacrosanct shelves of Olympia. No, there is only one country whose "right to exist" — though recognized by the League of Nations nearly a century ago and confirmed by the United Nations in 1948 — is considered a legitimate subject of debate. Instructing Israel on the most suitable method (one-state solution, no-state solution, final solution) of ceasing to exist is nowadays a ticket of admission to "progressive" circles. The instructors' motto resurrects the Reign of Terror slogan: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity — or Death." Listen to Noam Chomsky: "Unless those who call themselves 'supporters of Israel' are willing to face ... moral and geopolitical realities, they may in reality be supporters of Israel's moral degeneration and ultimate destruction." If one dare suggest that singling Israel out for destruction if it does not dance to your tune is anti-Semitic, Chomsky has a ready reply: "Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem ... It's raised ... because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98 percent control; that's why anti-Semitism is becoming an issue ..." Beautiful and touching words, by no means unusual in the parlance of those who deem Israel uniquely evil and, with help from its "supporters," responsible for every misery on the planet with the (possible) exception of global warming. (I add "possible" because Clare Short, a prominent member of Tony Blair's cabinet until 2003, charged that Israel is "much worse than the original apartheid state" because it "undermines the international community's reaction to global warming.") Chomsky is (mistakenly) identified as "a critic of Israeli policy." Nor is he the only beneficiary of the euphemistic redefinition of "criticism" where Israel is its object. A Vassar professor refers to Intifada II, during which Palestinian Arab suicide bombers, pogromists and lynch mobs slaughtered almost a thousand people and wounded thousands more, as "a critique of Zionism." A writer in the Chronicle of Higher Education assures readers that "calls to destroy Israel, or to throw it into the Mediterranean Sea ... are not evidence of hatred of Jews," but merely "reflect a quarrel" with Israel. When Harvard and Columbia University were censured in 2003 for honoring and hosting the Oxford poetaster and blood libel subscriber Tom Paulin after he had urged that Jews living in Judea and Samaria "should be shot dead," his apologists defended his right "to criticize Israeli policy." But surely criticism means trying to see an object as it really is, not destroying that object. Indeed, a critic need not be an enemy at all. The "critics of Israel" who deny its "right to exist" and threaten it with boycotts and even destruction if it does not disband itself may be dishonest and despicable, but let us not begrudge them their triumph. In the war of ideas they have beaten us at every turn; and by "us" I mean those Christians and Jews for whom the foundation of Israel was one of the (few) redeeming acts of a blood-soaked and shameful century. A 2007 BBC poll of 28,000 people in 27 countries showed Israel as the "least-liked" country in the world, and, among Europeans, most disliked in Germany. Yes, in the very country where the Jews' "right to live" was once a popular topic and "Kauf nicht beim Juden" ("Don't Buy from Jews") a popular slogan long before it reached Olympia, Israel-haters outpolled Israel-admirers by 77 percent to 10 percent. Still greater triumphs in the contest for public opinion may await these "critics." Their threats are not idle. On their own, they cannot visit upon Israel the terrible fate they think it deserves as the devil's experiment station, but they know they have a powerful ally named Ahmadinejad, bent on translating politicide into genocide. The Iranian president daily promises to "remove Israel from the map" with nuclear weapons and watches with glee as the international noose tightens around Israel's throat and the umbrellas go up in Europe and Washington. Edward Alexander is a University of Washington professor emeritus.
|
|
GAZA — GOLDSTONE AFTERMATH
Posted by Ari Bussel, July 28, 2010. |
|
Recently, Israel seems to be engaging in negative sum games: A "humanitarian" flotilla (the Turkish Terrorist Flotilla of Lies) is arranged to end the blockade and siege on Gaza put in place four years ago. Lo and behold, there is now a free flow of goods into Gaza. The mission was accomplished with flying colors. Bonuses must be awarded to those who brought about the desired end! Israel's ruling elite claims it intended to ease the restrictions all along. Apparently the catalyst worked, but why was it necessary to pay such a dear price of seven soldiers wounded and universal condemnation of Israel? In December 2008 Israel embarked on an effort to stop the smuggling of ammunition and instruments of war via the tunnels into Gaza and to end the constant bombardment of rockets from Gaza into civilian centers in Israel. Israel seems to have learned from her previous folly, going into Lebanon, what would later be termed the "Second War in Lebanon." Israel's stated objective was to bring back two Israeli soldiers. Finally Israel was humiliated, and their body parts were later exchanged for hundreds of terrorists. This time around, Israel was very careful not to declare a third objective of Operation Cast Lead: bringing back kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. And so, Shalit remains in captivity to this very day. The action in Gaza lasted for three weeks, from December 27th, 2008 to January 18th, 2009. The smuggling did not stop, there are today in Gaza more rockets and missiles, more sophisticated, much more accurate and with a far greater reach than ever before. There are those, both in Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in the Israel Defense Forces, who still claim the Operation was an astounding success and brought about the desired results. In a like manner, they (or others) would say that the Second War in Lebanon was likewise beneficial, for the North is quiet. Both Hamas and Hizbollah are today better equipped and more prepared to attack Israel than before 2008 and 2006 respectively. Rockets are continually launched from Gaza. They are still planning and preparing to kidnap Israeli soldiers and still determined to eliminate the Jewish State. All that is required is for Iran to give the "go ahead" and Israel, from its southern most border to its northern most border, will be under a Fourth of July attack of missiles. During the ground incursion into Gaza, Israel did not refrain, for the first time in history, from responding to rockets launched from mosques, UN building or schools. Previously, these were safe havens, but no more. Israel now realizes her enemy is manipulating world opinion. So, what is wrong with the picture? Israel has become accustomed to internal and external reviews. Yet, these commissions of inquiry and international complaints and lawsuits cannot be accomplished without inflicting pain to the Jewish State. Principally, debriefing and review are crucial in military action as in many other walks of life, from sports to business. It allows a review in a safe, controlled environment and to draw lessons. It often results in improvements if the lessons are properly implemented. For military action, debriefing and review must be internal. Instead, in Israel all is done in the public domain, under public scrutiny, available to the world and to our enemies alike. Israel failed to notice Hizbollah's leader, Nasrallah, laughing at her government and leaders, quoting or referencing particular sections from the Winograt Report. In a word; a circus. I remember sitting at a foreign press briefing during Operation Cast Lead. The IDF Spokesperson's officer-in-charge was asked about Israel's use of phosphorous bombs. She adamantly denied the charges. [She was since promoted to the rank of a Lieutenant Colonel.] A year and a half later, Israel committed to refraining from using these bombs with phosphorus elements to the UN. So were they used or not? A new report presented to the UN as a response to Judge Goldstone's Report shifts the focus of war from the battlefield to the courtrooms of international public opinion. In these courts, Israel is constantly demonized and found guilty, whatever she does. What is the utility in responding to the Goldstone Report if no one cares what Israel has to say? Will it prevent lawsuits against Israeli soldiers or politicians when traveling abroad? Will the accusation of committing war crimes be lessened or reserved? Since the answer to these questions is negative, one wonders about the utility in Israel's latest attempt at being whole and holy. The main messages of the report, as publicized and internalized in Israel are (a) investigating and launching judicial proceedings against soldiers, (b) the need for a "humanitarian officer" in each unit, (c) the incorporation of new guidelines about civilian protection and most egregiously (d) it submits to the international biased allegations. It also opens the doors to further legal action, including in Israel in front of Israel's Supreme Court against Israel and Israelis. Think of a boxing match. There are clear guidelines that must be adhered to by those engaged in the match. Then, think about such matches conducted in ancient times, or modern gambling matches between vicious dogs or roosters. In all these instances, there are no rules. All punches are allowed, anything that leads to one live victor and one dead opponent. Likewise here, Israel is trying to comply with unfeasible requirements she is to behave in a certain manner, although she, alone of all nations, already does. All the while, Israel's enemies do everything possible to destroy her: They kidnap soldiers from within Israel, fire at civilian population centers, declare their intention to destroy the Jewish State, hide behind mosques and schools, use ambulances for transport personnel and ammunition, use civilians as human shields and blame Israel for every untoward action they enlist. The true problem of the new report just released, the third in the series (the first was in July 2009 followed by a second installment in January 2010) is that it impedes the motivation of Israelis to fight for their country. If a soldier knows that he and she risk their lives during real-time fighting and later will need to defend every action, every thought, every split-second decision, they will prefer to err on the side of triple-extra-caution and thus do nothing. I am reminded of driving on the streets of Los Angeles. The signal drivers receive is very mixed; at some stoplights, when the time counter is down to zero, the light changes immediately from green to yellow to red in a scope of a second. Thus, the driver needs to stop. At other intersections, the stoplight counter goes down to zero, but the light remains green. When preparing to stop, looking at the cameras and thinking about the ticket (close to $500 for passing in red), I become confused. Zero time often, but not always, means stop now or get a ticket. Thus, I stop. But the light continues to be green, and those behind me find an outlet to honk, curse and express their opinion about my stupidity. Better safe than sorry. Why fight at all when the chances are that one will have to spend the time after the war not in recovery and recuperation, but in investigations by military police and the military advocate general? Not to mention the civilian courts, primarily the Supreme Court, and the likelihood of being prevented from leaving Israel to travel overseas. Our enemies are succeeding in turning our body elements against the body itself. In medicine, this is the description of cancer. Israel must change course and start fighting for her own survival, lest the cancer spread to the point of no return. Contact Ari Bussel at busselari@gmail.com |
|
'PARENTS OF SOLDIERS': PROTECT ISRAEL, DON'T EXPEL JEW;
STATUS OF PLO MISSION IN WASHINGTON RAISED
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 28, 2010. |
|
ISRAELI 'PARENTS OF SOLDIERS': PROTECT STATE, DO NOT EXPEL JEW 
An Israeli organization comprising religious and secular-minded people, "Parents of Soldiers," handed out a pamphlet to recruits advising them to follow the IDF code of ethics and protect the State, not expel Jews. The code quotes the Army's duty to protect independence and security, not to harm civilians, and not to follow illegal orders. The pamphlet refers to the Army expulsion of Jews from houses that the government calls illegal or are in areas the government wants to abandon. When the government abandoned Gaza and northern Samaria, it expelled almost 10,000 Jews from their houses. A member of Parents, Ron Breiman, also belongs to Professors for a Strong Israel. He points out that the soldiers' duty is to fight the enemy. He said that that mass-expulsion brought to realization his greatest concerns over it. [He must be referring to what Defense Min. Barak recently said was a result, Gaza "filling up" with rockets to fire into Israel.] Prof. Breiman concludes that, orders of expulsion should not only be disobeyed, they should not be given. Breiman remarked that all proposals for resolving the Arab-Israel conflict seem to involve expulsion of Jews. He said he wants peace, but not a peace based on non-Zionist, unethical expulsion The pamphlet states, "...You were not sent to serve in a political army that harms its own nation, or that plays a role in destroying our land and treats its citizens like enemies. Remember! Protect the army and its unity from attempts to turn it into a divisive and party-based army, activated by political interests. The expulsion of Jews from their homes is not security — it's politics!" (Arutz-7, 7/27/10). http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Speaking of politics, the matter of illegal houses is not well understood outside Israel. To Americans, the term, "illegal," carries a negative connotation of law-breaking. In Israel, however, "illegal house" may not involve law-breaking. As a whole, the so-called illegal houses of Jews in Judea-Samaria do not involve violations of property ownership law or of zoning and building codes. Indeed, the government authorized such construction and may have built the infrastructure pre-requisites. The problem is that housing construction involves a series of government approvals. Final approval is up to the Defense Minister, who heads a party opposed to Jewish construction. He cites nothing out of order about such construction, and no wrongdoing by the builders, but disapproves of much of it arbitrarily. That makes it more a political than a legal matter. Some people demand demolition of those houses as a matter of enforcing the law. The simplest way to do that would be to grant final approval. Demolition would mean destroying houses that the government assured people were legal to construct. If demolition is an important tool of law enforcement, what about
the many thousands of houses that Arabs build on land in Israel and in
Judea-Samaria that they do not own or do not have building permits
for, and some of which is zoned for public amenities and not housing?
U.S. RAISES STATUS OF PLO MISSION IN WASHINGTON The U.S. has raised the diplomatic status of the PLO mission in Washington to that of a "general delegation." The new status is short of what states have, but it gives officials in the mission diplomatic immunity and enables them to display the PLO flag. The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) denounced the change: "This amounts to a reward for continuing P.A. incitement against Jews and Israel, promoting hatred and violence, as well as its refusal to negotiate." "The U.S. has given Abbas' PA this upgrade despite the complete absence of Palestinian action to arrest terrorists, and end incitement to hatred and murder against Israel in its controlled media, mosques, schools and youth camps." President Obama has arranged to double U.S. subsidy of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), bringing the annual total up to $1.3 billion. P.A. Arabs get more foreign aid per capita than does anyone else. Obama had promised to hold the P.A. accountable for its incitement to violence (7/26/10 press release by ZOA, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member) Years ago, when the PLO first was declared a terrorist organization, Americans asked the government to close its offices in Washington and New York. The government refused. Does Obama feel that by inciting to hatred and murder and failing to arrest terrorists, the PLO deserves to be elevated closer to statehood? Recently, France made a similar change in PLO status.
BIGOTS ON U.C. BIAS COMMITTEE University of California President Mark Yudof has set up an advisory council on campus bias. None of the appointees has "demonstrable expertise" fighting antisemitism, which plagues U.C. campuses, but two have demonstrable experience fostering or favoring antisemitism. Therefore, while the purpose of the committee is meritorious, the composition of it is meretricious, reports the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). One of the pair is U.C. San Diego Professor Jorge Mariscal, who praised an anti-Israel event on that campus, "Justice in Palestine Week 2010 — End the Apartheid," whose title, alone, defamed Israel. The event featured Norman Finkelstein and other Israel-bashers. At U.C. Irvine, events such as "Israel, the 4th Reich" and "A World Without Israel" run for a week or two every year, not to enlighten but to incite. That kind of event slanders the Jewish state in an inflammatory way whose heat then gets directed to scorch Jews on campus. [Many people do not distinguish between the Jewish state and Jews outside the state.[ The other member of the pair is Imam Jihad Turk, Director of Religious Affairs for the Islamic Center of Southern California (ICSC). ICSC has committed the very antisemitism that the advisory council is supposed to address. In recent years: A 1986 ICSC conference prominently displayed the anti-Semitic The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. "In May 2008, the ICSC hosted a conference on the 'Nakba,' i.e., the so-called 'catastrophe' for the Palestinian Arabs when the State of Israel was established. Speakers at this conference, according to The Muslim Observer," called Israel colonialist and worse than apartheid South Africa; falsely claimed that the State of Israel arose by ethnic cleansing; and contends that Israel does not deserve to exist." [That is not criticizing some policy of Israel but the Jewish right to independence.] "Maher Hathout, a co-founder and current spokesperson for the ICSC, supports attacks on Israel by the terrorist group Hezbollah, and has called Israel a land of 'butchers' who have set up a system of 'racist apartheid.' In January 2008, Hathout gave his Friday sermon at the ICSC on the 'Tragedy in Gaza,' and defended Hamas' rocket attacks on Israel's civilian communities." More than 700 Jewish UC students protested to the Administration over "anti-Jewish and Israel-bashing speech and conduct on campus." "As noted historian Paul Johnson wrote in his book, A History of the Jews, 'One of the principal lessons of Jewish history has been that repeated verbal slanders are sooner or later followed by violent physical deeds.' This has been true at UC Irvine and UC Berkeley, where Jewish students have been physically assaulted. At least two students actually left UC Irvine because they could no longer tolerate the anti-Semitic hostility there. This past May, more than 60 faculty members at UC Irvine signed a statement saying that students and faculty feel intimidated and at times even unsafe. Jewish students and faculty on other UC campuses are also experiencing problems." (7/27/10 press release by ZOA, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member) (In the past year, we have covered U.C. problems several times.)
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC IS NOT IRAN
Posted by Amil Imani, July 28, 2010. |
|
"We just don't get it. The Left in America is screaming to high heaven that the mess we are in, in Iraq and the war on terrorism has been caused by the right-wing and that George W. Bush, the so-called "dim-witted cowboy," has created the entire mess. The truth is the entire nightmare can be traced back to the liberal democratic policies of the leftist Jimmy Carter, who created a firestorm that destabilized our greatest ally in the Muslim world, the shah of Iran, in favor of a religious fanatic, the ayatollah Khomeini." Michael Evans, Jerusalem Times, Jan 20, 2007 In 1979, the U.S. Government, notably, Jimmy Carter and company, with the help of its allied forces created the greatest Islamic terrorist nation on the face of the earth and the rise of Islamofascisim elsewhere. In fact, Jimmy Carter by his mere interference in another country betrayed the most valued friend to the West, the late Shah of Iran, and he is perhaps responsible for the formation of Islamicterrorism, not only in Iran, but around the world, including the United States.There have been more than 10,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 with 60,000 dead and 90,000 injured. "Carter's pro Human Rights campaign shocked the foundations of many American allies including the late Shah of Iran who was running an ancient country with cultural and historical complications that needed time to be corrected." It is interesting that Carter's UN ambassador, Andrew Young, called Ayatollah Khomeini, (an Islamist mass murderer) "a kind of saint." Ironically, after 31 years of devastation of civility by the radical Muslims, Mr. Carter is still active in siding with terrorist groups such as Hamas and other terrorist organizations, something the current administration appears to be following. "Jimmy Carter's belief that every crisis can be resolved with diplomacy has had many catastrophic results. What we encounter today, as Islamic Terrorism mostly backed by the current Iranian regime, is one of the few gifts of Carter's failed foreign policy. Had he shown resolve in dealing with the 1979 revolution and the US embassy hostage crisis, we would not be in this mess we are today. Diplomacy is a great tool to enforce your policies, if other tools of foreign policy including military might and economic incentive and disincentives correctly back it. Jimmy Carter didn't apply these tools properly in order to handle many crises he faced during his 4-year presidency. All the blame does not lie with Carter's failure but he played an important role in this." Michael Evans To most Iranians, including me, the name of the Ayatollah Khomeini was unheard of until the Western policy makers decided to remove the Shah (the best friend of the West) and install so called a "Holy Man" Ayatollah Khomeini and carelessly forced the Shah of Iran to leave his homeland. For 31 years, the U.S. is still making big mistakes with respect to its policy regarding Iran. It is as though the U.S. is unable to or unwilling to recruit experienced and capable people as advisors on Iranian affairs. For the past 60 years, every U.S. policy with respect to Iran has been failure upon failure. Currently, pro-Islamic Republic lobbyists known as the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) has been given carte blanche to the Obama administration. Instead of confiscating their assets, sealing their offices, and deporting them immediately, this pro-Islamic Republic group has comfortably found its way into the White House. As early as December 1954, the Shah noted, "the potentialities of friendly and close relations between the people of Iran and the United States are immense. There is a deep and fundamental identity of national interests which overshadows everything else. We both believe that the individual is the central figure in society, and that freedom is the supreme blessing... Iran has a great deal in common, in convictions with the Western world regarding freedom and democracy." During the revolution of 1979, the communists of course were very active in the original uprisings against the Shah. A very strange marriage took place early on between the Islamists (who were an insignificant minority) and the variety of communist factions. They buried their hatchets and supposedly "unified" the nation for a "common" cause, which was supposed to be the achievement of democracy and political freedom. Unbeknownst to most Iranians who jumped on the bandwagon with these two main groups, the communists had the dream of socialism and the Islamists wanted to bring about Islamic fascism. They both lied to the people and betrayed their trust. Periodically the Islamists used the idea of "Taqeyya" or an Islamic lie, took the nation and its revolution hostage. Then the Islamists started to arrest and murder the communists and anyone else they found to be against the establishment of an Islamic Ummah. This is exactly the way these forms of uprisings turn out. You can see it played out almost as a parallel in the October Revolution in Russia, which was the basis for George Orwell's book "Animal Farm." For the past 31 years, Iranian people have been kept hostage in their own county by a group of barbaric Muslim terrorists who despise anything Persian and are slowly purging the remnant of pre-Islamic Persia as well as Persian textbooks. These pro-Arab invaders are not Iranians by any means. Iranian is defined by a state of mind, not by a place of residence. The barbaric Islamist mullahs and their mercenaries presently ruling Iran are not Iranians. They are Islamofascists who have betrayed their magnificent heritage and have enlisted themselves in the service of a most oppressive, discriminating, and demeaning ideology, Islam. Iranians are proud spiritual descendants of King Cyrus the Great, the author of the first charter of human rights. Some of Cyrus' children live in the patch of land called Iran. The overwhelming majority — free humans with human beliefs — live in every country, city, and village of the earth. These world-wide people, one and all, irrespective of nationality, color, or creed are Iranians because they all adhere to the Cyrus Charter; they practice and defend its lofty tenets, and transfer this precious humanity's treasure to the next generation. What makes people different is not their biology, but the "software" that runs them. There is ample proof to support the above assertion. A case in point is the present menace posed by the people whose life is programmed by the software of Islam: an ideology anathema to the Cyrus Charter. And the results are self-evident. Hate, superstition, violence, and a raft of other inhuman beliefs drives these religious fascists. These captive followers of the primitive Islamic Charter are both the perpetrators and the victims of much suffering. The result is backward Islamic societies that are intent at dragging the rest of the world into the same sorry state. Misery likes company, it is said. We recognize that the dysfunctional Islamic software is deeply engrained in the minds of many Muslims who opt to remain in mental bondage rather than purge their minds of the Islamic programming and join the rest of the human family with a new emancipating program for life — liberty. Islamic clergy, the parasitic prime beneficiaries of Islam, are master practitioners of the carrot-and-stick strategy. By drawing heavily from the Quran and the Hadith, the conniving mullahs and imams have assembled a potent arsenal of threats and promises to keep the faithful in line. They had little trouble in so doing, since Islamic scripture is replete with graphic horrific punishment awaiting the wayward and the unbelievers, while the rewards for the obedient docile, if he is male, are described as an endless variety of sensual pleasures. Anyone daring to leave the corral of Islam is apostate and automatically condemned to death. And that's just for starters. The punishment awaiting the ungrateful deserter of the one and only true path, Islam threatens a raft of horrific eternal torment in Allah's hell. And for the true faithful — he mindless robot — he promised rewards, all physical pleasures, are infinite and eternal. In spite of these horrid threats and empty promises, more and more people are beginning to recognize Islam for what it is. It is difficult, but not impossible to leave fraudulent Islam's captivity. Millions of Iranians have done so successfully, yet aren't able to announce it for the obvious reason, and hundreds of thousands of non-Iranians have left Islam as well and are enjoying the blessings of liberty. A great threat facing free people is the recently petrodollar-energized Islam embarking on a campaign of recruiting more people under its dark banner. Millions of disenfranchised underclass in the non-Islamic world, and millions more mentally under-developed, may flock to Islam, deluded by its empty promises. Islam is no longer in its own self-made cage. It has broken out and has established a powerful presence in much of the non-Islamic world. Islam is a charter of submission. It is a sworn enemy of freedom and views the Cyrus Charter as heresy. Freedom and tyranny are incompatible. Free people must do all they can to preserve their birthright of liberty and assist others to break from the bondage of Islamic captivity. The interdependent world community faces great challenges that demand a united effort, uncompromisingly based on justice, to meet the various ills it faces. We can no longer be complacent about events in a distant world affecting alien people. Distances are bridged and alien people are now diverse members of the human family. We honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for proclaiming from a Birmingham jail, "Injustice anywhere is threat to justice everywhere." To demand justice for others, he risked his life, left his native Georgia, and ended up in jail in the then-bigoted south — Birmingham, Alabama. We "Iranians" of the world — free humans — must do no less. We must demand justice for our belief-kin who are suffering under the yoke of Islamofascisim in Iran or anywhere in the world. Now the world is facing wall-builders of a different kind: the Islamofascists who have been at their shameless work for centuries. As their walls built with superstition, discrimination and blood are crumbling; they are intent at building walls in new territories. But once again, human decency is rising to the challenge, this time in the voices and actions of billions of free people who proclaim: we are also children of Iran in the spirit of Cyrus the Great; "we meet any challenge and pay any price" to defeat Islamofascisim; and, we will not rest until humanity is completely free of the despotic rule of Islam. We Iranians in spirit — free people of the world — greatly cherish liberty, where the mind is imbued with enlightenment, and every individual by the virtue of being born human is afforded measured freedom. It is within the open expanse of liberty that each and every person can be at his or her best. And when the individual person is at his best, humanity is at its best.
Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and a pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He maintains a website at www.amilimani.com.
This article appeared in Family Security Matters (FSM) and is archived at
|
|
"JEWISH WEAKNESS ENCOURAGES ANTI-SEMITISM AND OUR OWN DEMISE"
Posted by Robert Kunst, July 27, 2010. |
|
Dear "Chosen" Activists: The Anti-Semitic Oliver Stone's statements and then an apology on 7/27/10, World Jewish Daily, below, reflect the increased attacks upon Israel and Jews. If the Jews did control the media, they are doing a rotten job if we look to the self-hating Jewish sellouts like NYTimes Thomas Friedman or Trudy Rubin of Philly Inq., to name a few of the sleaze that has brought us to this insanity once again. But since when did the truth matter, when Israel bashing and Jew bashing has now become a real door opener to another Holocaust and the end of Israel and Jews everywhere are threatened again! There is also a story below on why we are in this mess, because of the lack of leadership and willingness to constantly let our enemies come ever closer to our demise. Caving into those who would destroy us, in hopes of being 'liked' if we just give up being 'Jews' for 5000 yrs. is much too high a price to pay, but we keep paying it with the sleaze in charge of dictating these insanities. A key example this week, is PA's Abbas saying that he won't negotiate till Israel goes back to 1948 borders and expects Obama to bring this about with East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, already wrapped up for him, before he will have 'direct talks' with Israel. This would be hilarious, except that Ehud Barak is meeting with Barack Obama people, this week, on giving away the shop, while BiBi on his last visit with Obama, left open the door of 'negotiating' Jerusalem, when in April, Jerusalem wasn't 'negotiable'. Then we see the latest public relations stunt from Bibi, which is to practically grovel and beg Abbas for 'direct talks'. Does is get any dumber or more repulsive? Does it get any more insulting, that now the PLO will get its flag flying in D.C., while Obama folks say 'no change in status', but in France, PLO now is a 'mission' in their pursuit of 'two states'. which is the end of the Jewish state, and total victory for the Nazis and rewarding all of those killers of Jews. As usual, the Jews have a litany of excuses that this isn't possible and really isn't happening. So if the Jews, who 'own the media', have pushed us to this brink of insanity and Jewish non-leadership is plugging away at giving the Nazis their ultimate victory, by dividing Jerusalem, then the point of these two issues is that we are our own worst enemy and are constantly inviting our disasters, as much as what the enemy out there is doing. Today is Shalom International's 317 rally/event and 1214 news interviews since Oct. 2007. We're at Fed. Bldg. in Ft. Laud. We are the consistant reminder of the need to go on the offense and not keep getting picked off by everyone coming after us, because the world is asking: "WHAT DO JEWS STAND FOR?" If everyone wants Jerusalem and only the Jews are willing to divide it, according to the demands of our enemies, then what is our point of existance? Shalom International is that 'constant reminder' that Auschwitz and Jerusalem are not negotiable and the public is with us, so what is Bibi's problem? Would Muslims divide Mecca? That's one thing they have going for them, while we still argue after 5000 yrs.if there is a G-d, which got us to this point in our history, the sell-out Jews only want to talk about the last 62 yrs. and that we beat the enemy in 5 wars and 2 Intifadas and now we are giving it all back to them for a non-existant peace, that will never come, while moving the Nazis closer to finishing us off. So,if our 3000 yr. old Jerusalem, that millions of Jews were slaughtered for, doesn't matter, why would the world respect these immoral politics, from Jewish people so ill defined and so ill and why would they want us to survive, when we have so little self-respect to survive? Please reread all of this. It is the essense of the entire picture. Please help us to help you. Donate to : "Defend Jerusalem", P.O.Box 4021263, Miami Beach, Fla. 33140, or on paypal, www.defendjerusalem.net If you understand that my running for Congress as an 'independent' in Dist. 20, against Obama's entire approach to Israel to divide Jerusalem and Israel and America and my willingness to 'impeach' him with legitimate malfeasance and misfeasance, while in office in violations of U.S. laws and if you understand our need to stop the 'Mosque at Ground Zero' and our need to Boycott Turkey and everyone boycotting Israel and our need to stop Iran before it stops the world, then why aren't you behind this national effort, when the person I'm running against is behind everything Obama is doing against Israel and America? Kindly donate: www.kunstforcongress.com or Kunst For Congress, P.O.Box 402263, Miami Beach, Fla. 33140 paid political advertisement, Robert Kunst, 'independent' for Congress, Dist. 20. The Oliver Stones and the Ehud Baraks and the Obama's and Bibis are why I must do this or lose it all! Yours in Shalom,
Robert Kunst is President of, Shalom International. Contact him at 305-864-5110, or at his websites: www.defendjerusalem.net and www.kunstforcongress.com |
|
IRAN'S MINI-EMPIRE AT THE U.N.
Posted by Daily Alert, July 27, 2010. |
|
This was written by Claudia Rosett and it appeared July 23, 2010 in
Forbes
Claudia Rosett, a journalist in residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, writes a weekly columnon foreign affairs for Forbes. |
|
Despite sanctions, Iran continues to exploit the U.N. itself. The United Nations has just created a new "entity" on women's rights, called U.N. Women. Elections to its governing board are now being organized. How long before Iran wins a seat? If the question sounds absurd, the realities at the U.N. are even more mind-bending. The most recent high-profile outrage on this score was Iran gaining a seat in April on the U.N.'s Commission on the Status of Women. But that's the least of it. The reality is that Iran, despite being under four sets of binding sanctions resolutions by the U.N. Security Council, has learned to manipulate the institution in ways that make a mockery not only of the U.N. itself, but also of U.S. claims of diplomatic competence. Rarely remarked upon, but even more appalling than Iran's beachhead on the women's rights commission, is Iran's seat on the 36-member executive board of the U.N.'s flagship agency, the U.N. Development Program, headquartered in New York. Iran actually chaired the UNDP executive board last year, during the thick of the bloody protests in which Teheran's mullocracy was beating, jailing and killing protesters calling for democratic development in Iran. That same UNDP executive board, with Iran still in its lineup today, also serves as the governing body for the U.N. population fund (UNFPA) and the U.N. Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM). Iran's three-year term on the UNDP board expires at the end of 2010. But have no fear that Iran will be shut out of U.N. high councils on the status of women — or, for that matter, issues involving children and food aid. The newly created entity, U.N. Women, with or without Iran on its board, will be holding joint meetings with the executive boards not only of the UNDP, but also of the New York-based U.N. children's agency (UNICEF) and the Rome-based World Food Program (WFP). Iran sits on the boards of both UNICEF and the WFP, where its terms extend, respectively, through the end of 2011 and 2012. Iran also fields a hefty presence among the governing councils of U.N. outfits involved in matters germane to weapons, outer space and global crime. Through 2012 Iran — the world's leading terrorist-sponsoring state — is a vice chair of the Executive Council of the U.N.'s Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Iran sits on two major commissions of the Vienna-based U.N. Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC), including the UNODC's 20-member Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, where in 2009 it won a three-year-term. And this past April Iran won a seat with a four-year term on the U.N.'s Geneva-based Commission on Science and Technology for Development — never mind its brazen violations of U.N. sanctions on its rogue nuclear program. As for outer space, there's really no need for NASA to reach out to the Iranian portion of the Muslim world. Iran is already engaged in preemptive outreach. At the U.N.'s Vienna-based Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), the Legal Subcommittee — which works on who controls what in "the rational and equitable use of geostationary orbit" — is currently chaired by the head of the Iranian Space Agency, Ahmad Talebzadeh. Iran also sits on the governing council of the U.N.'s Geneva-based refugee agency (UNHCR), and on the governing boards of the two U.N. agencies headquartered in Nairobi: the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) and the U.N. Human Settlements Program (UN-Habitat). At the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), in Rome, Iran has just finished a stint as chair of the governing council — but don't worry, it will be back on the council next year, already listed as a member for 2011-13. Meanwhile Iran currently has an envoy on the FAO finance committee, spanning 2009-11. It was an Iranian initiative that paved the way for the U.N.'s current Alliance of Civilizations, launched in 2005. President Barack Obama dropped by one of its meetings in Istanbul last year, and the U.S., which declined to join under President Bush, has now signed on as a member. This Alliance, a murky globe-girdling exercise in "bridge-building," is a pet project of Spain and Turkey — where the Islamic ruling party, the AKP, has been unveiling itself as Iran's new bedfellow. All this comes along with the more prominent use made by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the U.N. stage, where he has spoken every year since 2005 at the annual September opening in New York of the General Assembly. It's a good bet that in just two months he'll be back for his sixth performance. Beyond that, over the past 15 months alone Ahmadinejad has taken the main stage at U.N. conclaves in Geneva (the anti-Semitic Durban Review Conference, April 2009), Copenhagen (the U.N. climate jamboree, Dec. 2009) and New York (the Nonproliferation Treaty review conference, May 2010). In sum, while it rarely gets much attention, there's a strong Iranian tang to the U.N. alphabet soup. This is a bizarre and alarming scene, given an Iranian regime that continues to indulge in the execution of juveniles and homosexuals; the stoning and mandatory veiling of women; the jailing, torture and murder of democratic dissidents; the spread and support of terrorist groups not only in the Middle East, but around the globe; and the sanctions-busting pursuit of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Some of this orgy of Iranian influence at the U.N. developed on the watch of President George Bush. Yet more has been spawned since Obama took office. What has the U.S. been doing to push back? In Washington, the U.S. Treasury has staff working overtime trying to chase down the constantly morphing networks of Iranian front companies, reflagged ships and other Iranian maneuvers to dodge both U.S. and U.N. sanctions. What's the State Department doing to help? Officially, State finally shepherded through a fourth round of Iran sanctions at the U.N. in June. But here's how the diplomatic back shop works. When Ahmadinejad decided to attend the Nonproliferation Treaty review conference in New York this past May, Iran at the last minute filed a blizzard of visa applications for Ahmadinejad's entourage, most of them submitted just three working days or fewer before this entourage proposed to touch down in New York. That should have set off big alarms, given Iran's record of exploiting the U.N. system and abusing its U.N. foothold in New York to recruit sanctions busters and oversee a large alleged Iranian front operation, the Fifth-Avenue-based Alavi Foundation, right out of Iran's U.N. Mission in Manhattan — as described in a slew of federal court documents over the past three years. How did the State Department handle these last-minute Iranian visa requests? There was every opportunity to deliver a solid rebuke simply by letting the applications languish for more than three working days. State is usually more than adept at such delays, for reasons far less compelling. Instead, at Iran's behest, State hustled to approve, pronto, a staggering total of 80 visas for Ahmadinejad's retinue. Iran then complained to the U.N., because along with the 80 approved, one visa request was denied. Within the warped backrooms of the U.N., Iran continues to expand its web of access and influence. Instead of standing up to this, the Obama Administration — now dispensing more than $6 billion per year to bankroll almost one-quarter of the U.N.'s budget — keeps rolling over. Why's that? The Daily Alert is sponsored by Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and prepared by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). To subscribe to their free daily alerts, send an email to daily@www.dailyalert.jcpa.org |
|
ISRAEL'S PRESSING MATTERS
Posted by Ari Bussel, July 27, 2010. |
|
There are several major anti-Israel campaigns underway. Let us look at some ongoing and upcoming events: 1) Israel's alleged Apartheid's regime, ongoing Israel must be aware of some or all of these accusations and campaigns against them. After all, Israel is quite sophisticated. Its Ministry of Foreign Affairs has branches the world over and the Government Press Office follows global news, as does the Israel Defense Forces Intelligence Branch. There are NGOs that actually do this for existence, including Jerusalem-based Memri that follows the Arabic news media. There is also an Information Directorate at the Prime Minister's Office. They must be well versed in the above, as should Israel's Minister for Public Diplomacy and the Diaspora and his staff. Then there are the various "policy advisers" and well-paid strategists (all on the taxpayer's dime) who clearly are aware of these plans. None of the aforementioned areas of contention should come as news to anyone. After all, they have been readily and repeatedly advertised. Israel's enemies are not shy in announcing their plans. They do so explicitly, publicly and unabashedly. Israel and her diplomats, elected and appointed officials and respective support staffs are smart people. All are very well compensated. Clearly, there must not be any surprises in this dispatch, not to them. So what is Israel doing? Has she gone on the offensive? Are there drawer plans for these certain eventualities? Will she react, as in recent years, or come out with a more pro-active approach? What will she do when events take unexpected turns as in the latest Turkish Terrorist Flotilla of Lies? Like a script, finished and in the process of being filmed, the attacks against Israel are in advanced stages of production. All that is necessary is the addition of an effective public relations campaign to support the upcoming release. An enormous budget has been allocated for the new release, a war machine against the Jewish State. It dwarfs that of previous films and is greater than the sum total of all combined expenditures on movie releases in Hollywood for the past decade. What excuses will be provided next for Israel's failures on the Public Diplomacy Front? Lack of personnel? Insufficient funds? Politics? Corruption? The "Other" Party or "Someone Else is at fault," "We did not know," "We did not expect," "Events took an unexpected turn," "It concerns us not," "What is Israel to do?" There is more planning of excuses than strategies to avoid failure. Wake up Israel's leaders and guards. You are entrusted with preparing for such untold and unforeseen eventualities. The events I mentioned have already been acknowledged and your enemies have warned you time and again. Yet, you see not and listen not. You choose to ignore, and it is inevitable you will pay a price. Former glory will not sustain present failure. The Israeli public is constantly misled into a false sense of security by the plethora of ministerial and governmental entities entrusted with Israel's Public Diplomacy. More than all other failures, this is the most egregious, for the very existence of structures must be dismantled in order to improve the health and well being of the Jewish state. Israel must shift her thinking and understand the war machine must be equally divided between two fronts: the armory and public relations. News Alert for the near future: A defiant Israel is said to continue its harsh stand against the United Nations. In a surprising development, Israel has announced it will not grant entry to the three appointed members of the International Board of Inquiry appointed by the UN Human Rights Council. Observers in Israel report this opposition is unlikely to last. July 23, 2010, AFP, excerpts: GENEVA — The UN Human Rights Council named a panel of experts Friday to investigate whether Israel's deadly raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla breached international law and urged the Jewish state to cooperate. The script from AP, brought almost in its entirety alongside its key elements, is so elegantly played out that one does not need to engage any specialists to create a sequel. All that is needed are the appropriate name substitutions. I am already marking my calendar with great anticipation! Viva Palestine, the eternal homeland of the Palestinian People, created by those who write fiction! Soon millions of Palestinian refugees will trounce Jerusalem, their never before mentioned capital. Wake up Israel's guards and generals entrusted with public diplomacy. Where are your leaders Israel, as international public demonization mounts against the Jewish State? Contact Ari Bussel at busselari@gmail.com |
|
LEAKED DOCUMENTS
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, July 27, 2010. |
|
Wikipedia has released sensitive documents about America's war in Afghanistan. The matter of leaking these secret documents to Wikipedia now shifts to the source of these documents. I am reminded of the false report traced to the U.S. State Department wherein several State Department Arabists were assigned to infiltrate several of the 16 American Intelligence Agencies to plant erroneous information that Iran had ceased its nuclear development. The idea was to curtail any plans by the Bush Administration to bomb Iran nuclear development sites. In essence, the Arabist State Department was running its own Shadow Government and making its own secret policy. The Director of the CIA later apologized to Congress for this deliberately false report. John Bolton, former American Ambassador to the U.N., confirmed at the time of the released false report of the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) December 2007 that three State Department agents were assigned this task of subversion. The title of the false NIE implied that Iran had ceased its nuclear research and development. That "false" impression was carried forward in all the world's media. However, John Bolton totally discredited that 2007 NIE. Ambassador John Bolton said in the Washington Post of December 6, 2007: "That such a flawed product could emerge after a drawn-out bureaucratic struggle is extremely troubling. While the president and others argue that we need to maintain pressure on Iran, this "intelligence" torpedo has all but sunk those efforts, inadequate as they were. Ironically, the NIE opens the way for Iran to achieve its military nuclear ambitions in an essentially unmolested fashion, to the detriment of us all." With that in mind it would not be too far a reach to conclude, subject to a deep investigation, that the Arabist State Department once again leaked documents in their possession to Wikipedia to subvert the war in Afghanistan and put our soldiers at further risk. So far the Arabist State Department has remained untouchable on many projects — especially in the Middle East. This includes funding terrorist organizations through NGO's and other venues such as the United Nations — as well as undermining the security and sovereignty of our only dependable, democratic ally in the Middle East — Israel. Iran's head, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared often and loudly, that he plans for Israel to be the first target of his upcoming Nuclear Bombs to "wipe Israel off the map". However, Ahmadinejad has also demonstrated that his missile throw capacity could bring Nuclear Weapons to threaten Europe and the 300,000 to 500,000 American and Allied soldiers in the Middle and Far East. We have observed many active and retired State Department diplomats on the payroll of Islamic nations upon retirement who lobby Congress and the President to ignore dangerous activities by these Muslim and Arab nations. Frankly, I don't think there will be a deep investigation of the Wikipedia leaks, particularly if it might lead into the bowels of the State Department. One last thought! I wonder if this is merely an clever move by President Barack Hussein Obama through his advisors John Brennan and Rahm Emanuel to get the American people riled up so Obama had an excuse to accelerate his withdrawal of American troops? This below is called "Website Releases Secrets On War: Leaked Documents Paint A Bleak Picture of Afghan War" by Julian E. Barnes &and Siobhan Gorman, Wall St. Journal, July 26, 2010. Write to Siobhan Gorman at siobhan.gorman@wsj.com Jeanne Whalen, Nathan Hodge and Maria Abi-Habib contributed to this article. |
|
WASHINGTON — he release by a Web-based organization of thousands of secret military documents that appear to present a bleak view of the Afghan war drew a range of reactions Monday, underscoring that they could have a profound impact on public perception of the war. The U.S., the U.K. and Pakistan condemned the huge leak of classified information, while Afghanistan focused on reported Pakistani support for the Taliban-led insurgency and reports of previously undisclosed civilian deaths to demand further tightening of rules of engagement. The Pentagon said it is trying to assess the damage caused. The release of the documents, which were obtained and made public by the website WikiLeaks, evoked the release of the so-called Pentagon Papers, the secret history of the Vietnam War, which, when published, contradicted the public narrative of that war and played a role in turning public opinion against it. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told a London news conference Monday the documents appear to contain evidence of war crimes, adding it would be "up to a court" to make judgments. He cited especially Task Force 373, which he called a U.S. military "assassination unit" that he said killed seven children in a "botched raid." Asked how many incidents could potentially be investigated for possible war crimes or other reasons, he said "thousands," adding that the U.S. military would probably be forced to investigate some. Mr. Assange said information in the documents "really doesn't paint a flattering picture of the Taliban, either," noting that there are many reports of Taliban-planted explosive devices causing "significant loss of human life." He strongly suggested a coverup of civilian deaths during the war, pointing to U.S. military reports on the number of people wounded or killed during specific incidents. In some of these, a high number of those killed or wounded are classified as "enemy" while very few are classified as "civilians," which he called "suspicious." WSJ Afghanistan correspondent Matthew Rosenberg speaks with Amol Sharma about the significance of the leak of thousands of documents related to the Afghanistan war and the possible effects on the perception of the war among American and Afghani citizens. He said the documents don't just "reveal abuses" but paint a detailed picture of "the last six years of war," including the kinds of weapons used and the progress or setbacks experienced. Coming at a time when U.S. President Barack Obama's Afghanistan strategy has come under increasing criticism, the release will likely stoke criticism of the war effort, as well as spark a debate about the manner in which the information was made available. WikiLeaks allowed three publications — he Guardian newspaper in London, the magazine Der Spiegel in Germany and the New York Times — o have access to the documents for several weeks. Those news outlets released stories in a coordinated manner late Sunday. The documents are mostly raw field reports, some spare, some mundane and others rich with narrative details. Many of the low-level reports are the kind that some intelligence experts consider the equivalent of second-hand rumors, said one U.S. official. The White House condemned the release of the documents, as it has in the past when WikiLeaks has made classified material public. Even as it condemned the leak, the White House also noted that the bulk of the material released was from the Bush administration. An Afghan soldier searched a boy during a patrol in the volatile Arghandab Valley, Kandahar, Afghanistan, Monday. "On Dec. 1, 2009, President Obama announced a new strategy with a substantial increase in resources for Afghanistan, and increased focus on al Qaeda and Taliban safe havens in Pakistan, precisely because of the grave situation that had developed over several years," Gen. James Jones, White House national security adviser, said in a statement. WikiLeaks said it was releasing some 91,000 documents, reports that cover the period from January 2004 through the end of 2009. On its website, WikiLeaks also said it would delay the release of 15,000 reports at the request of its source. As it reviewed and redacted those documents, they too would be released, the statement said. The most surprising finding in the reports may be that the Taliban have used sophisticated heat-seeking missiles against aircraft operated by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Afghan resistance fighters used similar weapons, provided by the U.S., to great effect against the Soviet Army in the 1980s. The U.S. military has never publicly acknowledged that the Taliban possess such weapons. According to the reports, the Pakistani military's Inter-Services Intelligence agency provided the Taliban with havens in Pakistan, even as Islamabad was aiding the U.S. war effort. That charge has often been made privately by U.S. officials. Even in public, Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Kabul, has said the ISI retains ties with the Taliban. Other reports detail missions conducted by Special Operation Forces charged with hunting down top insurgent commanders. The reports claim successes but also note that mistakes have led to the death of Afghan civilians and, as a result, eroded U.S. standing in Afghanistan. The U.S. has increased the number of Special Operations teams and their operational tempo in recent months. Officials say rules put in place by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the former top commander, have minimized the collateral damage produced by the elite forces' raids. The reports note that a number of U.S. unmanned aircraft have crashed and collided, undermining the overall success rate. That finding also has been previously reported by news organizations. The swiftness of the White House's response when the first stories about the WikiLeaks documents appeared suggests it views the release of the reports as potentially damaging to the war effort. The administration has boosted the U.S. presence in Afghanistan by 50,000 troops but put in place a tight timeline, insisting it plans to begin a drawdown in about a year. At the beginning, the war in Afghanistan enjoyed widespread support, even from Bush administration critics who would later oppose the Iraq war. As it has dragged on, becoming the longest armed conflict in U.S. history, doubts about whether the U.S. can be successful in Afghanistan have grown. Antiwar members of Congress such as Rep. Denis Kucinich (D., Ohio) have seized on new revelations about the war to renew their arguments that the U.S. should begin to withdraw. A minority of lawmakers has so far supported withdrawal resolutions. The House is due to debate a resolution on U.S. involvement in Pakistan this week. The WikiLeaks reports will likely be used as ammunition in that debate. "However illegally these documents came to light, they raise serious questions about the reality of America's policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan," said Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in a statement. "Those policies are at a critical stage and these documents may very well underscore the stakes and make the calibrations needed to get the policy right more urgent." The release is sure to put attention on WikiLeaks, a Web-based group devoted to publishing state secrets. In April, the organization unveiled classified footage of a 2007 U.S. helicopter attack in Baghdad that killed two Reuters employees. In addition to video shot from a helicopter gunship, the group released a package of documents related to the attack; it sent correspondents to Baghdad to track down survivors of the incident and conduct follow-up interviews. At a news conference in releasing the video, Mr. Assange called the pairing of investigative reporting with leaked footage a "powerful combination." This month, the U.S. military said it would press criminal charges against an Army soldier, Pfc. Bradley Manning, for allegedly transferring classified military information to an unauthorized source. The charges appeared to be connected to the materials WikiLeaks released in April. The arrest of Pfc. Manning intensified the criticism of WikiLeaks and discussion about whether Mr. Assange was inducing people to leak classified data that could potentially put intelligence sources in danger. Launched in 2007, WikiLeaks has posted a wide range of leaked documents from the internal correspondence of climate researchers to information on secret sorority rituals. The organization has designs on being seen as a serious newsgathering enterprise. The unusual agreement to team up with the three major news organizations appears to be an effort to build on those aspirations. U.S. Marines and Afghan National Army soldiers walk during an operation to clear the area of insurgents near Musa Qaleh, in northern Helmand Province, southern Afghanistan, on Friday. In coming days, as officials and experts review the documents, new revelations are likely to come to light. The most important documents may be those dealing with the activities of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence and its relationship with the Taliban. Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S., Husain Haqqani, condemned the leak as irresponsible and not reflective of the current situation on the ground in the region, adding that the U.S. and Pakistan are "strategic partners" working to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban. "These reports reflect nothing more than single-source comments and rumors, which abound on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and are often proved wrong after deeper examination," he said Sunday. The Pakistani government, he said, "is following a clearly laid out strategy of fighting and marginalizing terrorists and our military and intelligence services are effectively executing that policy." Several of the reports provide details behind the long-running U.S. contention that Pakistani intelligence officers — and veterans of the ISI — have been supporting the Afghan Taliban. One January 2009 intelligence report describes an Afghan Taliban meeting that included former ISI chief Hamid Gul. It focused on plans to launch a truck bomb to avenge the recent killing of Osama al-Kini, an al Qaeda leader killed by a Central Intelligence Agency drone. The participants at the meeting included several older Arab men with large security details, which may have indicated they were members of al Qaeda. Mr. Gul advised the group to focus their operation on Afghanistan "in exchange for the government of Pakistan's security forces turning a blind eye," the report said. Mr. Gul has denied links to terrorism. Pakistani officials strongly dispute the notion the government still provides support to the Afghan Taliban, saying they have severed all ties. A report from December 2006 describes a member of the ISI running a suicide-bombing network in Afghanistan that trained bombers, conducted reconnaissance, and performed other operational planning and support for attacks such as transporting bombers from Pakistan to Afghanistan. The aspiring bombers receive training at militant camps, including one run by a notorious militant group that has links to al Qaeda, the Haqqani network. According to WikiLeaks reports, the Taliban were expert in using heat-seeking missiles. Still, U.S. officials have never acknowledged the Taliban had access to such weaponry. One document released by WikiLeaks was a May 30, 2007, report that discussed a CH-47 transport helicopter destroyed by a heat-seeking missile, killing five Americans, a Briton and a Canadian. At the time, a NATO spokesman dismissed witness reports suggesting the helicopter was struck with a missile. The WikiLeaks report shows the military knew that the Taliban had used a heat-seeking device. Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@gwinstonglobal.org |
|
SRAEL: US MILITARY AID TO LEBANON COULD GO TO TERRORISTS;
FIRST FEMALE ISRAELI ARAB COMBAT SOLDIER
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 27, 2010. |
|
ISRAEL PRAISES BUT SUSPICIOUS OF P.A. FORCE How to reconcile IDF praise for the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) military with IDF suspicion of it? The praise is that they "calmed" the area and repress Hamas. Yoni Ben-Menachem reported on Israel Radio (7/26/10) that Israeli Central Commander Avi Mizrahi warned his troops that the IDF must be prepared to see the P.A. forces, which U.S. General Dayton is training in Jordan, turn against Israeli troops and civilians. Gen. Mizrahi explained that the new P.A. military has been trained and equipped by U.S. experts far advanced beyond the hodge-podge gunmen of the Intifada at Jenin. The new P.A. military is a professional, deadly infantry force. It can take the initiative, and is not likely to throw down its weapons, as seen in prior wars. The general explained that with four snipers, it could pin down an area. The broadcaster went on to attribute to the suspicion Gen. Mizrahi expressed, Israel's precaution in not allowing delivery of the armored personnel carriers already shipped to Jordan by Russia. The U.S. comptroller reacted to the prohibition with a complaint that Israel hinders training of the P.A. military. To Israel, such hindrance means Israeli security. In the 1996 Hasmonean Tunnel and 2000 second Intifada conflicts, P.A. police turned their guns against Israeli forces. After the Camp David talks failed, the P.A. General Intelligence and Preventive Intelligence forces turned into armed terrorists, attacking Israeli civilians and soldiers. There were other examples. Israel would not object to Arab autonomy with sufficient forces to maintain internal security; it objects to forces sufficient to attack Israel. Yes, P.A. forces repress Hamas. But that is a tactical matter of immediate preservation of Abbas' Fatah regime. It is not a strategic alliance with Israel nor against terrorism. Suppose Fatah's strategy shifts to reconciliation with Hamas. Then the P.A. could redirect its new military against Israel. Israel would face forces trained at battalion level to fight in urban areas and to conquer strongholds, IDF outposts, and settlements (IMRA, 7/26/10).
P.A. MILITARY: MORE 
Adding to the prior article, Emanuel Winston of Winston Mid East Report and Analysis further explains that the U.S. trained the P.A. in intelligence and communications. He presented a JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) report on this, #1009, 7/23. JINSA shares the Israeli general's concern. Israelis acknowledge that whatever P.A. forces do against Hamas, saves Israel having to do it. The American trainers coordinate the force's action with Israel. But Abbas' P.A. remains hostile to Israel. And U.S. officials already are talking about engaging with Hamas while training a P.A. force ostensibly against Hamas. Meanwhile, the P.A. is chafing at U. S. supervision, demanding that the U.S. stick to training and leave the P.A. independent in determining its security interests. The implication is that whereas the U.S. thinks it is training a force just against Hamas, the P.A. wants to be free to determine whom it is against. [An earlier article documented Abbas' call for war on Israel if negotiations do not give him everything he wants.] The problem may be that the U.S. states goals in mechanical terms, such as number of units prepared, rather than in broad terms of policy goals, such as P.A. compliance with Roadmap obligations to eradicate terrorism (7/26). Further considerations: 1. We have documented a number of times that Israel has had to raid terrorists in the P.A., at night, because the P.A. forces do not eradicate terrorism, they block Hamas, but not other terrorists. 2. In the link cited above, one can find documentation for Abbas' pro-terrorism. 3. There is a phenomenon of futile praising of other parties in the hope of motivating them to make peace or provide security. Examples are Israeli praise for P.A. forces, praise for obviously ineffective Egyptian efforts against tunnel smuggling, and Nobel peace prizes in advance of anything more than signatures for Obama, Abbas, and the North Vietnamese leader, Le Duc Tho. TURKEY HELPING SYRIA CRUSH KURDS 
As Turkey builds relations with fellow Islamist neighbors, reports are coming in of Turkey helping Syria crush Kurds in Syria, Iran crush its Kurds, as well as fight its own Kurds and those from Iraq. As a member of NATO, Turkey has advanced Western weaponry. Israel still furnishes Turkey with advanced arms, although Turkey's government has turned radical. Israeli officials rationalize their continued sales on the grounds of good relations with Turkey's military. Meanwhile, however, the government of Turkey has indicted many of the top brass there. Badgered by the religious Right and from the liberal side over past interference in government in behalf of the Constitution, the Turkish generals with whom Israeli officials have a relationship are losing power and losing touch. Al-Arabiya reports that Turkey is using unmanned aerial vehicles supplied by Israel, to track down the Kurds. Israel has no plans to cancel sales of more. The danger to the whole region but particularly Israel is that the radical regime will direct Turkey's army for jihad, which Israel was able to fend off before, when it had superior weapons to the Soviet ones used by the Arabs. Now Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan have the same U.S. weapons as Israel and an understanding of what Israel can do with them. The same type of danger from Turkey faces Israel and American interests from Egypt, whose regime may end soon. The Moslem Brotherhood may then gain increasing influence over Egypt's first-class military. Al-Arabiya reports that Turkey is using unmanned aerial vehicles supplied by Israel, to track down the Kurds. Israel has no plans to cancel sales of more. The Mideast is changing. Israel's concept of it does not seem to be. It tries to retain dead or dying relationships (IMRA, 7/24/10 from Carolyn Glick, Ed. Jerusalem Post). I followed up with Carolyn Glick to ask whether advanced weapons Turkey acquires from Israel may be given to Iranian laboratories to figure out. Then the Islamist axis could either counter the Israeli weapons or make their own (and not pay Israel). She agreed that indeed there is such a concern (email, 7/27). Before the Intifada, we reported personal relationships between officials of Israel and of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). We also reported years ago, just as IMRA did on 7/24 about the present, the security cooperation the IDF felt it had with P.A. forces. Those relationships did not stop P.A. troops from suddenly opening fire on IDF troops on joint patrol with them. Neither did those relationships prevent Intifada. Without taking sides, the Kurdish conflict involves autonomy versus
conformity in the several countries in which the approximately 40 million Kurds are located and the terrorism and oppression in waging the conflict.
HIZBULLAH BLOCKS LEBANON-FRANCE SECURITY AGREEMENT The parliamentary delegation of Hizbullah and its Amal and Michel Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement) prevented ratification of a France-Lebanon agreement for cooperation on internal, civil, and administrative security. The objection was to the agreement's stated opposition to terrorism. Hizbullah and allies want the agreement to adopt the Arab League definition of "terrorism" and not the French definition. The French definition would apply to Hizbullah and Hamas [because they specifically attack civilians]. The Arab League definition exempts militias that attack civilians if fighting what the Arabs call "resistance to occupation." The government tried to conciliate the Hizbullah bloc by pointing out Lebanon's rights to reject French proposals and to withdraw from the agreement. When that did not work, the government offered to add to a signed agreement an appendix adopting the Arab League definition. The opposition bloc walked out, preventing the parliament from endorsing the agreement (IMRA, 7/27/10). The difference between the two definitions is that: (1) The new, Arab League definition arrogates to itself a right to murder civilians for its cause, and to call self-defense against that cause "terrorism" if civilians accidentally get killed during self-defense against jihad; and (2) The original definition is based on the traditional international law rules of warfare, which try to keep war between armies and not spread them to civilians and perhaps genocide.
ISRAEL: U.S. MILITARY AID TO LEBANON COULD GO TO TERRORISTS Israeli Defense Minister Barak's warning that, if Hizbullah attacks it, Israel would defend itself against the whole regime, got all the attention, but almost unnoticed is his further alert that U.S. military aid to Lebanon may fall into the hands of terrorists. President Obama announced intent to raise that subsidy to $100 million. More specifically, Min. Barak put it, "...the walls between the Lebanese armed forces and Hizbullah — it's quite porous. And whatever you give the Lebanese armed forces might end up in the hands of Hizbullah, be it technology or weapons or whatever." (Arutz-7, 7/27/10). This column's prior analysis made the same point about the Lebanese armed forces and Hizbullah, but warrants clarification. Since Hizbullah and the Lebanese Army are more or less allies, Hizbullah may not need to capture the U.S. arms, if it could direct the Lebanese Army whom to use them against. A prior article finds the U.S. in a similar position with the Palestinian Authority military. Has the West yet learned that other cultures whom it assists have different goals?
FIRST FEMALE ISRAELI ARAB COMBAT SOLDIER Cpl. Elinor Joseph is proud to be Israel's first female Arab combat soldier. She is building a fine record as a medic, after having served as a border guard and winning the respect of the border population and her fellow troops. A Christian, Cpl. Joseph realizes she is working for a Jewish state, but this is her country and she wants to help protect its people, including her own family. As she gets to know the people whom she works with and those whom she is assigned to protect, she gets to care for them. Joseph grew up in a mixed Arab-Jewish neighborhood. Her father was an IDF paratrooper, who wanted her to enlist. An early obstacle to her career choice was her friends' objection. She put the onus on them to show that their friendship for her was genuine and not political. When people tell her she may have to kill Arabs, she deflects the point from one of ethnic solidarity by pointing out that Arabs kill Arabs (Arutz-7, 7/27/10).
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
STOP HARASSMENT OF RAV OF OD YOSEF CHAI LETTER TO KNESSET MEMBERS
Posted by Robin Ticker, July 27, 2010. | |
| TO: ddanon@knesset.gov.il, myaalon@knesset.gov.il, mcachlon@knesset.gov.il, hkatz@knesset.gov.il, yiskatz@knesset.gov.il, llivnat@knesset.gov.il, gsaar@knesset.gov.il, zpinian@knesset.gov.il, ypeled@knesset.gov.il, mregev@knesset.gov.il, rrivlin@knesset.gov.il, kshama@knesset.gov.il, ysteinitz@knesset.gov.il, sshalom@knesset.gov.il, yedelstein@knesset.gov.il, meitan@knesset.gov.il, zelkin@knesset.gov.il, oakunis@knesset.gov.il, gerdan@knesset.gov.il, bbegin@knesset.gov.il, iaharon@knesset.gov.il, rilatov@knesset.gov.il, olevy@knesset.gov.il, aliberman@knesset.gov.il, ulandau@knesset.gov.il, slandver@knesset.gov.il, mmatalon@knesset.gov.il, anmichaely@knesset.gov.il, amiller@knesset.gov.il, smiseznikov@knesset.gov.il, amarh@knesset.gov.il, fkirshenbaum@knesset.gov.il, drotem@knesset.gov.il, lshemtov@knesset.gov.il, mgafni@knesset.gov.il, mmozes@knesset.gov.il, umaklev@knesset.gov.il, uorbach@knesset.gov.il, zorlev@knesset.gov.il, dhershkovitz@knesset.gov.il, dazulay@knesset.gov.il, aatias@knesset.gov.il, yvaknin@knesset.gov.il, nzeev@knesset.gov.il, eyishay@knesset.gov.il, amncohen@knesset.gov.il, amichaeli@knesset.gov.il, ymargi@knesset.gov.il, mnahari@knesset.gov.il | |
bs"d Dear Chavrei Knesset, amv"sh What exactly did the Rav say that deserved being awoken at 4:00 am traumatizing his family and dehumanizing him as if he was a criminal? Perhaps it's what he didn't clearly say. Perhaps he didn't clearly spell out or point a finger at the Palestinians who have used their children and ambulances as human shields and lie through their teeth for PR purposes. For them are we expected to endanger our Soldiers like we did in Jenin? The hypocrisy of Britain and America! They clearly would never stand for this cowardly excuse of fighting by the Palestinian enemy that endangered their own little Palestinian children and prey on our merciful nature. Mercy on our part thereby endangers human lives and and causes us to be cruel to our very own soldiers. Showing mercy to our enemy that behaves in such a despicable fashion merely encourages and escalates their choice of weapons such as using children and ambulances as human shields. Restraint on the part of Israel is not in the interest of innocent Palestinian children and GREATLY endangers Israeli fighting aoldiers since it forces our soldiers to sitting ducks or easy targets. IN Auschwitz the jEWISH prisoners would have embraced an attack on the railroads leading to Auschwitz and the Concentration Camps even if it meant that some Jews would have been killed. All understood clearly that the intention of bombing the tracks was to stop the process of mass murder of millions and not to kill the number of Jews that happened to have been there at the time. For shame on those reporters that made is seem like the Rav was a racist that treasures Jewish Blood over Gentile blood. What a blatant distortion. It'a obvious to me that it is the intent of such Gentiles that determine the Halacha and not their blood type, race or religion. Here is an article that slanders Rabbis as being racists against Gentiles based on bloodtype. The headline is quite blatant and accusatory. Shapira's distinction between Jewish, gentile blood Members of Knesset: Please do what you can to stop the slander and incarceration of G-d fearing Jews and the execution of the destruction of shuls and communities in Yehudah and the Shomron! Sincerely,
This email is L'Ilui Nishmat Yisrael ben David Aryeh ob"m (Izzy — Kaplan) a great activist and lover of Eretz Yisroel, Am Yisroel and the Torah. Yehi Zichrono Baruch. |
|
STOP KILLING YOUR COUNTRY
Posted by Paul Lademain, July 27, 2010. |
|
We are the Secular Christians for Zion. We stand firmly by the Patriots of Israel. We are appalled by the way your government ignores international law and the Treaty of San Remon which established the boundaries of Israel ca. 1920. These boundaries encompassed the region known as Gaza, most of the Golan Heights, Jerusalem, and Judah and Samaria. We have studied middle east issues for years and we are deplored by the rampant disintegration of your nation by misguided zealots both within and without Israel who are in favor of the "piecing away of Israel" in exchange for a "peace" that consists of air kisses, bribes, and flattery. Your people, the ones in leadership whose families spent most of their lives running from country to country to save their money and skins are the kind of people who do not want to understand that to have and keep a country you must fight for every inch of your land and not piece it away, chunk by chunk, for any reason, and certainly not to buy favor from the lunk-heads and embedded Saudi lobbyists that infest the US State. Dept. We are Americans who are appalled by the shenanigans of our US State. Dept. We are equally appalled by Israel's ignorant and morally weak leadership — ignorant because it apparently doesn't want to educate itself about the San Remo Resolution and morally weak because it fails to demand the restoration of all the lands of the Jewish Homeland. Stop arresting your Patriots — when you do, you merely incite disrespect from the Arabs who already detest you and you also invite sneers from the rest of the world who are willing to hate you because you blow big and crumble easily. In short you leaders are willing to pander to Islamic imperialism. Kindly understand that no matter what "gestures" you offer to your enemies, they are educated to disregard them and consider all Jews fools and knaves because they believe all Jews are as sappy as Israel's lax leadership. Your supreme High Court is a mess of Jewish contrarians who would, given a chance, reward arabs for keeping slaves. Why? Because these judges are the worst kind of Jews: contrarians and seditionists and smug loud-mouth poseurs. If you cannot hang together, then each of you will hang separately — so warned Ben Franklin to the founders of the United States. Israel needs similar leadership but unfortunately, lack wise leaders. Instead, they have cunning, short-sighted finaglers such as Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres, both known to have bargained away Israel's sovereign rights through their unlawful acts. They should be arrested, not the poor rabbi who dared speak his thoughts. Arrest Barak as soon as he steps off the plane. Throw Shimon Peres in jail until he rots. These fools are the bane of the Western world and the destroyers of Israel. We support Israel because Israel is the shining rock that stands on the Saudi path of Islamic imperialism. Obama will pass. We don't want a president who engages in international bow-movement tours. He'll most likely be a one-termer. We demand that Israel survive. Now you know why. Now you know how. Viva Israel!
Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net |
|
WE STAND AT A HISTORIC JUNCTURE (TEMPLE MOUNT PETITION)
Posted by Temple Mount Petition, July 26, 2010. |
|
Dear friends, Thank you so much for taking the time to read and sign the petition for the Temple Mount. A few months ago a historic debate was held in the Knesset Law Committee to decide if hearings should be held on the issue of Jewish ascent. A vote to hold the Temple Mount hearings passed by a vote of 12-0 along with 1 abstention. However the head of the Law Committee MK David Rotem of Yisrael Beitenu is stalling the hearings for political reasons. Friends, now is the time to act! The Knesset is on summer break and will resume in 3 months. This gives us time to rally the world Jewry and all those who love justices and mercy for the sake of the Temple Mount. We have an historic opportunity to return Jewish Prayer to the Temple Mount; we have an historic opportunity to turn the Mount as is written in Isaiah 56:7 into "A House of Prayer for all Nations". Where all Nations can find a common spiritual ground and stand as one before He whose Name is One. Maybe this place can help bring a little peace and tranquility to an increasing volatile world. Please urge all your friends and family to sign the petition for Jewish Prayer on the Temple Mount and help insure that all humanity can come together and pray together. I have spoken to Knesset Members and they want to hear your voice! They want to be empowered and emboldened to take the courageous steps that are needed to make this dream a reality. Help us reach an ambitious goal of 100,000 on the petition. Check the petition homepage for more actions in the coming weeks and months! Thank You. |
|
|
|
DESTRUCTION AND HARRASSMENT BY BARAK
Posted by Mattot Arim, July 26, 2010. |
|
At four o'clock this morning, Israeli security forces swooped down on Shomron Jewish community at Yitzhar, burst into the home of the local Rosh Yeshiva (head of rabbinical school) and arrested him in front of his 11 young children, on charges stemming from a scholary treatise he wrote — many months ago — relating to the dilemma of when it is permitted and not permitted to use force against non-Jews. Some sources say that pro-Palestinian minister Ehud Barak has also given orders to demolish the rabbi's yeshiva in Yitzhar during Barak's seminal visit in the U.S and indeed, a home of a young couple in Shomron was in fact demolished today. All this is being done while the Knesset, Israel's parliament, is in recess and cannot raise a fuss. ABROAD: It is vital that Ehud Barak upon arrival in the U.S. be swamped with reasonable requests to cease this barbaric treatment of the Jews in Judea and Samaria and to immediately order the cancellation of the directive to demolish the yeshiva — the pretext being a building code violation from 1998 (12 years ago). This could be a precedent for the IDF to destroy hundreds of public buildings in Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and in Jerusalem. What the Israeli government fears the most is feedback from abroad, so yes, many phone calls can certainly reverse the decisions that have been made. Therefore, foreign citizens pls contact Barak's spokesman, Mr. Seri, at cell phone number 972-50-629-8949. ISRAELIS AND ABROAD: Use fax or phone to try to get through: Fax (send to all numbers): 011-972-2-563-2580 (attention: Tzvi Hauser, Cabinet Secretary who reports directly to Netanyahu. And also: 011-972-2-670-5369, 011-972-2-649-6659, 011-972-2-6513955, 011-972-2-6535178, 011-972-2-5664838 Telephone -011-972-2-670-5532 (attention: Tzvi Hauser, Cabinet Secretary) and also: 011-972-2-675-3227, 011-972-2-640-8457, 011-972-2-6753333 (if told Prime Minister is not present, ask for any Likud aide or legislator) Dialling from Israel? Omit 011-972 — instead just dial zero. If you cannot get through by fax and phone, at least email Israel's ministers and MKs and ask them to get on the phone to Mr. Netanyahu, and to get into the press making strong statements, before it is too late for them to help (Timing Is Everything). You can write to all of the following: ddanon@knesset.gov.il; myaalon@knesset.gov.il; mcachlon@knesset.gov.il; hkatz@knesset.gov.il; yiskatz@knesset.gov.il; llivnat@knesset.gov.il; gsaar@knesset.gov.il; zpinian@knesset.gov.il; ypeled@knesset.gov.il; mregev@knesset.gov.il; rrivlin@knesset.gov.il; kshama@knesset.gov.il; ysteinitz@knesset.gov.il; sshalom@knesset.gov.il; yedelstein@knesset.gov.il; meitan@knesset.gov.il; zelkin@knesset.gov.il; oakunis@knesset.gov.il; gerdan@knesset.gov.il; bbegin@knesset.gov.il; iaharon@knesset.gov.il; rilatov@knesset.gov.il; olevy@KNESSET.GOV.IL; aliberman@knesset.gov.il; ulandau@KNESSET.GOV.IL; slandver@knesset.gov.il; mmatalon@knesset.gov.il; anmichaely@KNESSET.GOV.IL; amiller@knesset.gov.il; smiseznikov@knesset.gov.il; amarh@knesset.gov.il; fkirshenbaum@knesset.gov.il; drotem@knesset.gov.il; lshemtov@knesset.gov.il; mgafni@knesset.gov.il; mmozes@KNESSET.GOV.IL; umaklev@knesset.gov.il; uorbach@KNESSET.GOV.IL; zorlev@knesset.gov.il; dhershkovitz@KNESSET.GOV.IL; dazulay@knesset.gov.il; aatias@knesset.gov.il; yvaknin@knesset.gov.il; nzeev@knesset.gov.il; eyishay@knesset.gov.il; amncohen@knesset.gov.il; amichaeli@knesset.gov.il; ymargi@knesset.gov.il; mnahari@knesset.gov.il; Please pass this on to your pro-Israel friends (and friends in Israel). Contact Mattot Arim by email at mattot.arim@gmail.com |
|
HATE MAIL — FROM UNRWA
Posted by Honest Reporting, July 26, 2010. |
|
Unrwa_logo Hate mail from a UNRWA email address arrived in my in-box today. I'm omitting the first half of the email address so this person doesn't get bombarded with emails. From: A/RAHIM, Saadi
Dishonest reporting, That's your true identity, and your true character. Thank God that many people; including Jews, all over the world even inside Israel, whom you like to call self hating Jews; have started to see the big lies of Zionists including yours. I wonder how many truly of those around. If you really want to be fair and honest about it, which I doubt, go back and read history with a fair and nonbiased mind. I did some Googling, and found on LinkedIn a Saadi Rahim who works for the UNRWA — as an officer in charge of transportation and logistics in Jordan. What unstated big lies of the Zionists (and HonestReporting) is Mr. Saadi Rahim referring to? These?
More importantly, by using a UNRWA email address, he may technically be representing the UNRWA. Do Rahim's views of Zionism represent the UNRWA? What does this say about the organization Rahim works for? Even if Rahim's views don't technically represent the UNRWA, he did use an official email address the same way Octavia Nasr had CNN written all over her tweet. Honest Reporting monitors the media for inaccuracy and unfairness in how they report the news about Israel. Ther website address is http://www.honestreporting.com. Contact them by email at action@honestreporting.com |
|
BLOCKADES AND GENOCIDE
Posted by Boris Celser, July 26, 2010. |
|
This was published July 24, 2010 at O Globo newspaper and by the Brazilian
Foreign Ministry's daily selection of media articles.
|
|
Turkey assumed the defense of "peace ship " and poured their bile on Israel, which had kept relations of mutual cooperation in various sectors. Another manifestation criticism of Israeli policy with respect to the territorial sea of Gaza has one of the most renowned personalities in Britain, Tonny Blair, a participant in the international scheme you want, deaf and blind, to solve the centenary of conflict between Jews and Arabs. Without going into the event which shook the world so grossly disproportionate to their reaction to the magna violence that have occurred in various parts of the planet, with sacrifice of thousands of lives, we need to analyze the authority of Turkish and English to criticize the lock Sea that Israel imposes on the Gaza coast. In Turkey occurred in 1915, the first great tragedy of the twentieth century — a genocide of 1.5 million Armenian Christians, driven from their homes, taken to the sea and drowned, dragged into the streets and tortured to death — men, women, Old men, children, in an unspeakable massacre, led by government authorities, largely unknown tragedy of humanity. Hitler, when warned by advisors on the risk of executing the liquidation of millions of Jews, he replied that there was no problem, exclaiming: "Who remembers the Armenians?" he knew that nobody would come to the rescue of the Jews, the Armenians as nobody came forward. After the war of 14/18, the League of Nations and the great powers have behaved cynically, failing to give any support to survivors and rewarding the Turks with an expansion of its territory, to the detriment of the Armenian people, who found himself exiled from his land. The Treaty of Lausanne, 1923, between the great powers and the new Turkish republic, completely ignored the survivors of genocide. The Satanic crime of the Turks against the Armenians took the diabolical crime of the Germans against the Jews. And currently reigns the hypocrisy of Western nations and international organizations with their critical burning to Israel without regard to the terrorist policy of the Palestinian leadership, supported by Muslim governments. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chause. Successive Turkish governments have refused to acknowledge the genocide committed against its Christian minority, the Armenians. The current government maintains the same policy. And nothing to dissuade this cruel indifference, as I said jus — renowned internationalist, is to kill the victims a second time. The British cooperated with Germany by closing the doors of Palestine to the Jews who wished to flee the Nazis. The White Letter May 1939 — just when the war began — has imposed a quota immigration to Palestine to 15,000 Jews a year. At the same time encouraged the arrival of Arabs from different regions for the territory under its mandate. The mandatory power gave full support to Arab aggression, remaining inert in the face of pogroms perpetrated against the Jewish population and preventing armed defense by victims. In the Middle East, as in all areas colonized by the British Empire, this made it planted the poisoned seeds of future internal crises and armed struggles. The British cruelty during the war years, preventing the saving of hundreds of thousands of Jews escape from Europe to Palestine, culminating in the maintenance of the policy after the war when, in the years 1945-1948, the blocked port Haifa to all victims of Nazi persecution, creatures reduced to abject physical and moral misery, trying to reclaim their lives in the Holy Land. Vessels approaching the port were sent back to Europe. Some were taken to Cyprus, the passengers forced into internment camps. Remember the movie "Exodus." The blockade maintained by the government of St. Britannic Majesty before and during the war led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the deepest humiliation of thousands of Holocaust survivors. Turkish and English should remember his criminal past before taking action against a country that blocks the entry of weapons and missiles to a terrorist group that sets out in its Charter in order to destroy the State of Israel and annihilate its population through the operationalization of its wish through terrorist actions and thousands of missiles on the Israeli population. Blockades and genocide they have — British and Turks — known experience and would do better to be silent on the defensive policy of the State of Israel. |
|
A LETTER TO HANIN ZUABI, ISRAEL MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT
Posted by Susana K-M, July 26, 2010. |
|
This comes from www.takeapen.org |
|
Miss Zuabi, First and foremost "chapeau" for a very effective P.R. I must admit: I didn't know of your existence until the flotilla provocation. In fact I still don't know anything about you but almost everyone in the country knows of you and that is quite an achievement! Please allow me then to ask you: Besides of fame, what were you trying to achieve? You know, as well as we all do, that there is no shortage of food in Gaza, or any other commodities for that matter. Yes, alas, there is a constant shortage of ammunition or materials that could be used in the production of weapons, and so it should remain! Gaza needs no protection! Gaza is not under attack! On the contrary, Gaza is a nasty aggressor who for years has been rocketing civilians on a daily basis! (never heard you comment on that!). Let's be honest: You did not truly believe that the flotilla was going anywhere! So, what were you thinking when you saw all those hooligans armed with knives and clubs and hatchets, that kept your company aboard the ship? That it was a masquerade ball? Did it occur to you that, as Israel's Parliament Member you should have warned our army of what awaits our soldiers aboard? Did you try to stop that outburst of violence? What did you expect would happen? That maybe like the "Sarajevo Assassination" that ignited 1st World War, your flotilla will ignite the Middle East? And then what? Let's try to understand your logic: You feel frustrated, bitter, discriminated, you believe that the regime in Israel is oppressing and ruthless and should be overthrown. Do you have any idea at all what awaits you personally should your aspirations God forbid, be realized? Do you think that in a regime controlled by Hamas or Hezbollah or Al-Qaeda or Taliban, women have any rights? Particularly independent ambitious women? What about nine year old girls? You may not have children of your own, how about little nieces? Can you imagine life in a regime where any dirty old man can purchase himself a nine year old girl and penetrate her vagina? And appalling as it may sound it would be legal and lawful and even encouraged!!! Did you think of that Miss Zuabi? Do you have any idea what oppressing tyranny is really like? Did you know that the Islamic revolution in Iran was enthusiastically supported by the intellectuals? Who, like you, considered the Shah's regime an oppressing tyranny that should be overthrown? Try to find out what they think today (Those who survived...as most of them didn't!!). Ask them about life in the Islamic Republic, about freedom, about human rights, about women's rights. I suggest you read "Reading Lolita in Teheran" by Azar Nafisi, or "A thousand Shining Suns" by Haled Husseini, or "Not without My Daughter" by Betty Mahmudi. Did you ever wonder why all the so called Arab countries in which over a billion Muslims live are all defined as "3rd world countries"? Did you ever wonder why although the Shiite leaders condemn western culture as blasphemous and decadent, for their billion subjects the "west" is a desired immigration target? Did you ever wonder why all those who apply for Family Reunion wish for it to be in Israel and not in Gaza, or "Palestine" or Syria? Is it because of our standard of living? Or our human rights and freedom? Or our social and health security? So maybe, after all, we are not that evil ! Mentioning Palestine and Palestinians: Have you ever wondered whatever happened to the hundreds of millions (yes! Hundreds of millions!!!) refugees scattered all over Europe during and following 2nd World War? Entire cities were bombarded and destroyed! Dozens of millions of homes ruined! About fifty million lives lost, twice as many wounded and crippled! Hundreds of millions found themselves away from home, out of their countries! So, where are they? They couldn't have vanished! No! They did vanish! They were rehabilitated!!! That is the answer of the "blasphemous" "decadent" west to refugee issues! Any refugees! And indeed the "west" poured incredible amounts of money in order to rehabilitate the Palestinian refugees, not knowing or refusing to acknowledge that the Palestinian leaders had no interest in solving the refugee issue! On the contrary, they did everything within their power in order to p r e s e r v e it! At the same time, they did like the idea of the money, so they preserved that too! Very carefully, in their (not so little) own private bank accounts! In other words, Miss Zuabi, The solution does not lie in destroying Israel and replacing its free democratic regime with an extreme Islamic one. Should that, God forbid, happen, you may enjoy, for a split second, the sweet taste of profound satisfaction, and the next split second you will watch not only your privileges being taken away from you, but all your basic human rights! The Shariah Law does not acknowledge human rights, let alone women's rights: Women are men's property to be treated as they please! But you must know that ... No, Miss Zuabi, destruction is never a solution! Your solution lies in Education, and more education!!! Not brain wash!!! Not that childish nonsense about Paradise with it's seventy virgins (In any event not meant for you ...) Real free plural western — yes, Western — education that will raise free, moral decent human beings, capable of standing up for their rights without the use of knives and clubs, aware of their duties and place in society. Miss Zuabi, I so much hope that the day will not come, when from the depth of an open grave into which our bodies would be thrown, I will whisper to you: " I t o l d y o u u u u u ..." Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
PEACE DOES NOT EXIST!
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, July 26, 2010. |
|
What difference will it make if Israel abandons Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights, the Jordan Valley and all those parts of Jerusalem (north, east and south) that were illegally occupied by Jordan for 19 years from 1948 to 1967? If there is one religious leader for Muslims, the Koranic injunction to disperse all "infidels" (non-Muslims) so the Muslim Caliphate is to be pure, then the very word: "Peace" remains a sick delusion. We are all too familiar with the homily that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Incisive commentary wherein research experiments that have failed will continue to fail when repeated with the same components while yet expecting different results. Albert Einstein said that was insane. Jews, of all peoples, should not expect new results from a primitive people who produce nothing of real value but who still cling to a pagan mythology which embodies all manner of conquest, murder, human sacrifice (either their own people or a suitable infidel enemy), child abuse (teaching their children to hate and kill). Asking Muslims to abandon their pagan moon god Zin (aka Allah) along with the Koran and Mohammed's thoughts in his "Hadith" (oral laws) is like asking them to stop breathing. We should be stunned by the useless efforts of the nations to pacify and change the ways of Muslims whose entire being is saturated with a poison which cannot be eliminated or treated. Jews, above all, should recognize the facts of aberrant behavior, given their history of being pursued from ancient times to their death. The Church morphed into a killing machine, using a dead Jew on a Roman torture instrument which, like the swastika, became a mystical symbol which demanded human sacrifice. Granted, each symbol had its high priest cult to guide and provoke — all of which is still with us today. Only Genocide would temporarily quench their blood lust and sacrifice which is why the Muslim "Ummah" (people) cannot be pacified, appeased or reasoned with. On a practical level, a remnant of Jews have gathered from all corners of the earth in Israel as a refuge from European Christianity and Arab/Muslim countries — only to find that the savage pagans of Islam are still willing and anxious to carry forward the Genocide from which the Jews thought they had escaped. Granted, Jews have a large contingent of fools who can't seem to remember history and wish to repeat the same failed experiments. It is understandable that Jews, hunted throughout the centuries, want peace and barriers to keep out the packs of predators who desire their flesh. Every real Jew who harkens to his inborn National Memory knows that Judea, Samaria, the Jordan Valley, the Golan Heights and Jerusalem will be used as was Gaza as a point from which to launch missiles to kill Jews. The Christian nations know that the Arab Muslim
Charters calling for the elimination of the Jewish Nation/State and
her people remains uncancelled and in full force. The Nations know
this and have become willing partners because these Charters of death
are merely an extension of their own past.
ARE THERE ANY SOLUTIONS? Indeed, solutions exist but, it is doubtful that the Jewish leadership of today has either the courage or the foresight to implement them. First, we must accept the fact that there will be no peace with Islam. We might reach a stand-off but, no permanent peace. The Muslims' codes mandate against it. An example of weak leadership can be observed as the so-called Jewish leadership of American institutions are listening to an arch killer of Jews and the facilitator of Yassir Arafat's schemes to eliminate Israel as he lies in English just like Arafat. Mahmoud Abbas, Head of the so-called "Palestinian Authority" is that lying man to whom the Jews listen in rapt attention, with polite applause for Arafat's "money bag-man" who assisted the Munich Massacre of the Israeli athletes — among other Terror acts. How did this group of "useful idiots" sit there and listen to an unrepentant killer of their own people and then carry his message to President Barack Hussein Obama to pressure Israel into surrendering defensive territory of their ancient homeland so the Jews of Israel could suffer a rain of missiles from Judea and Samaria as they now do from Gaza? The strong leadership of Ariel Sharon (at the end in the completely wrong direction) followed by Ehud Olmert, with Tzippi Livni and Ehud Barak, are also examples of Jewish leadership gone bad. Earlier one observes Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres sacrificing Jews to Yassir Arafat through the Oslo fiasco. Are there no Maccabees to be found among such rabble that are today drawn to l eadership positions by money, power, crippled ideology — calling for the genuflecting to enemies who promise death or slavery? If one reads the biblical instructions in the Torah to the Jewish people, we are not to adopt the gods of others nor use images to worship. Yet, here we are today, observing Jewish leaders who are urging the Jewish people to honor a false messiah from America who in leading both America and Israel into national suicide. Groveling never brought peace to the Jewish people wherever they happened to be. One can recall the bribes paid to appointed local Commissars in Russia and Europe. Maybe the Jews got a few moments of peace until the Czar or the Church decided the peasantry needed a release from their poverty and called for a pogrom to ease their tensions and, of course, all the loot they could steal from the Jews. In August 2005, we observed the abandonment of Gaza, a once prosperous Jewish community of 10,000 Jewish men, women and children from 21 towns, exporting unique bug-free produce, organic fruits and vegetables as well as flowers. As soon as Olmert unleashed the Jewish thugs known as Yassam to drive the Jews from their homes, farms, greenhouses, schools, synagogues and cemetery, the Arab Muslim Palestinians could not restrain themselves from their national tendencies as looters. Instead of retaining the infrastructure built by the Jews but left for the Muslim Arabs to use for their benefit, the Arab Muslims looted, burned and destroyed. The greenhouses which produced insect-free produce were ransacked. Pipes, valves, electronic controls were torn from their frames. Everything the Jews left was looted and destroyed. Later, when the Arabs tried to grow produce as the Jews had done on arid soil, they could not do it. So, they set up rocket launchers and shot 10,000 rockets, missiles and mortars into civilian Israel. The Jewish leadership who caused this catastrophe did nothing to stop the missiles for 41/2 years, until their weak attempt in December 2008-January 2009. But, even then they stopped short of clearing Gaza of the Muslim Palestinian Terrorists. Regrettably, the Jewish leadership was not brought up on charges of collaborating with the enemy and sentenced to punishment in prison or a "Nuremberg" equivalent. In summation, creating a Palestinian Muslim State of Terror in Judea, Samaria, the Jordan Valley and dividing Jerusalem herself, should be considered a capital crime. All of its participants should face a jury of the people whose lives they've destroyed and they should be judged on the basis of all those killed by their perfidy. Let not one ever be buried in the Holy soil of Israel but in a place in the wilderness as was done with the goat Azazel. Talks are irrelevant for Israel but, very relevant for Abbas, Fatah and the Arab/Muslim countries. These "talks" will be their way into gaining support from Obama and the International community. Israel will be pressed hard to abandon her real assets — such as Land, Water, Defensive positions for the promises of Islamists and Arabists. Since the Koranic mandate demands that true Muslims must lie to infidels, none of what they agree to will matter. Mohammed practiced the art of making false treaties — like the Hudabaiya Treaty — followed by building his military strength and then breaking the Treaty, slaughtering his misled victims. We are seeing even today the results of criminally weak Jewish leadership, accepting the lies of Islam thus sacrificing their own Jewish people and the sovereignty of their own Jewish Nation/State. Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@gwinstonglobal.org |
|
THE COMING SUCCESSION TO POWER IN EGYPT
Posted by Professor Alexander Bligh, Ph.D., July 26, 2010. |
|
A couple of months ago when President Husni Mubarak of Egypt celebrated his 82nd birthday no one believed that the next Egyptian succession would be acutely relevant so soon. Along with the 87 year old king of Saudi Arabia (his ailing Heir Apparent is 84) these two moderate Arab countries are poised to enter the eye of the storm any day now. The imminent regime changes in these two countries may revolutionize the pace of regional politics for years to come as well as having major repercussions for the US. So far President Husni Mubarak has refused to appoint a vice president or to announce his preference for a successor. This and the fact that Mubarak made sure that no other public figure achieves significant national popularity nor gains any independent political standing has been interpreted by many as his intention to leave the position for his son Gamal. Although Mubarak and his son vehemently deny such interpretations, his actions point at this direction. Technically, the issue of Presidential succession is regulated by the Egyptian Constitution. Article 76, as amended in 2005, created the legal conditions which ensure that the ruling National Democratic Party would have been left without competitors in the next election and that the next president neither comes from legal or illegal opposition circles, nor from the military or security services complex. It envisions the next president as coming from the same establishment as his predecessors, meaning from Mubarak's close circle, the successors of the original 1952 "Free Officers". However, no such figure has emerged yet and with the short time available to make such decision it is difficult to point to a natural successor. For the short term, until Mubarak leaves the scene, Egypt basic strategic orientation, including peace with Israel and tacit cooperation with potential enemies of Iran is unlikely to change. Once Mubarak leaves the scene three possibilities emerge bearing in mind that a "black sheep" is always a possibility. All are equal in their chances of materializing: 1. Mubarak's son, Gamal (b. 1963), becomes president in a smooth transition. Each of the three possibilities would entail a different policy: 1. Gamal Mubarak would try to use all of his father's connections and bases of support and with all likelihood would continue Husni Mubarak's policies. Significant segments within the Egyptian public would consider his assumption of the presidency illegitimate, but he would be most acceptable to the US. His succession may herald a long period of competition over the presidency. Conclusion The best course of action at this point is a "wait and see" approach. However, conditions may rapidly escalate and deteriorate and diplomatic and military precautions are called for. Prof. Alexander Bligh, Ph.D.is an international strategic consultant. Contact him at stalex018@att.net |
|
THE QUIET BEFORE THE STORM
Posted by Marc Prowisor, July 26, 2010. |
|
Do you here that? Listen, sshh... Seems quiet, doesn't it. I have been told that the eye of a hurricane can be very deceiving, apparently also regarding a few months prior to congressional elections. The sudden drop in pressure and calm from DC does not calm me down, indeed, I take it as a warning to the continuation of the storm, just like the passing of the eye of a hurricane, I've been told the storm is usually much worse in the second half. The best advice would seem to be to take advantage of this calm and inspect the damage sustained, batten down the hatches, shore up the loosened boards, and strengthen the weak parts of the house. Because, have no doubt, the storm will be back. The waters of the political arena in the US regarding Israel are definitely stirring, there is an undertow that could drag a buffalo down to the abyss. It seems quiet to those of us that aren't aware of the "ins and outs", but never less, the quiet waters are dangerous, shark infested too. Congressmen realize that their seats may not last forever, President Obama is not a duck fan, especially not a lame duck fan, and the "Minyan" (quorum) on Pennsylvania Ave. also does not wish to leave the "Bimah" (prayer platform) in shame. Quite suspiciously "pressure" is being put on PA Prez Abbas to start direct talks, I know he is laughing, in fact it is the big laugh at the new Gaza Strip Mall. When this White House starts showing hints of even "miniscule" support for Israel, time to watch out. The game is called, "lets fool the Jews again", and it's played with loaded dice. Pretend Palestinian President Abbas claims to have found new friends in the US. We know Peace Now and J Street are his natural allies, but now Abbas claims that the leaders of AIPAC and the "Conference of Presidents" also back him in his claims and desires to set up a new Arab entity in the Middle East on Jewish land. The scary part is I haven't heard any denials yet.... The worse part is that I believe him. I believe most people are sitting back in disbelief... that is those that care. Divide and conquer aren't just words, they are a proven strategy. It is a strategy that our enemies have adopted and are working overtime to fulfill. The division of our land, our people, anything to weaken us has now become a "cause", hey! Even Oliver Stone is getting involved. Most of the Jews in the Diaspora do not understand the depth and danger of the "Two State Solution", indeed, most of them do not even venture out (when in Israel) to their own historical sites, their own heritage. They have been infused with fear, and deceit, not just by our enemies, but also by our own. The "Conservative and Reform Jewish" movement in the US wont even cross the "Green Line" to show it's youth our rich history, in our land, stating its dangerous and the political over and undertones. They prefer to keep them afraid in their own land. Is it no wonder that they are loosing so many each year to assimilation? They wont even show their young their own identity and where they came from. It is not from Europe, nor the concentration camps...IT IS ISRAEL! SHOW THEM! Imagine if a few years back if we would have acted the same way, I doubt we would have had a nation today. I am amused how we in Judea and Samaria are often described as "Religious fanatics", I admit to taking pleasure telling the 50% of secular Jews out here that fact. It is no surprise though, especially when the media outlets of the world focus on a few individuals to describe over 300,000, so much for objective and honest reporting. It comes down to this, there are whole bunch 'o bad folk out there whose main purpose and focus in life is to make life for the Jews difficult. If we stand by quietly, idly and do nothing, they will succeed and the price we pay will be in blood. There are plenty of "Think Tanks" out there, brilliant Columnists and Bloggers, all ready and willing to give you every bit of information you may need to understand the situation better, but you must make the effort. And when the words do not suffice, and you hunger for more, then you must come and see for yourself. We must take full advantage of this illusion of calm and act, learn, see, shout, speak, write and do, and now. If your "movement" will not show you, we will. If your "leader" will not guide you, we can. If you want to know where you are from, come visit. We are here and welcome you with open arms. The storm is not over, get ready and be prepared. By the way, I love duck. Contact Marc Prowisor by email at marc@friendsofyesha.com. And
visit
|
|
CENTCOM PLANS FOR DAYTON'S ARMY?
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, July 26, 2010. |
|
Since President Barack Hussein Obama was elected, many — including me — have identified him as a Left-Leaning Arabist of Muslim extraction. As Commander-in-Chief he, along with the hostile Arabist State Department have used their privileged offices to subvert the Jewish Nation/State of Israel at every possible level. Although the Arab and Muslim nations have proven they are the enemies of the Free West, including America, Israel and Europe, the Arabists in American government have bonded with the Terrorist Muslim nations in a Faustian bargain with the devil of oil. Even as they kill American soldiers in Afghanistan, Iraq and America — as on 9/11/01, Obama — as Commander-in-Chief — issues orders to first Gen. Dayton and now to Centcom (Central Command) to build the Muslim Arab Palestinian Army (known to be Terrorists) who without question will attack the Jewish Nation/State, using American-taught technology and arms — including secret intelligence, communications skills, as well as sleeper cells placed in sensitive positions. Clearly, President Obama does not represent the American people or the American Congress who support Israel's right to defend herself and maintain her sovereignty as a Jewish nation. Given what Obama is doing to bring America to her knees in national bankruptcy and his personal biased hostility to the only democracy in the Middle East, he deserves nothing less than impeachment as a clear and present danger to the American nation and the Jewish Nation/State. The following analysis by JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) explains Gen. Dayton's role and his replacement — all at the hands of President Obama. |
|
JINSA Report #1009
JINSA has long expressed concern about military skills being transmitted by the U.S. to a Palestinian Authority military force while the Palestinian government remains openly hostile to Jewish sovereignty in the Middle East. The Israelis tell us, "The more they do against Hamas, the less we have to do." The Americans tell us, "Everything we do is coordinated with our friends in Israel." We believe them both, while remaining enormously skeptical about the ultimate wisdom of the plan and right now have a queasy feeling about the future of what has been called "Dayton's Army." LTG Keith Dayton, USA, who for the past five years was the U.S. Security Coordinator for the Palestinians, is being replaced by MG Michael Moeller, USAF (who will receive his third star along with the assignment). Interestingly, while LTG Dayton's career in the Army centered on EUCOM, the European Command of which Israel is a member, MG Moeller comes to the job from CENTCOM, which specifically does not involve itself in matters involving Israel or the Palestinians. Until now? MG Moeller, currently director of strategy, plans and policy at CENTCOM, is said to have had no contact with the Palestinians to date, but is it possible that the U.S. is thinking that Americans working with a Palestinian army should be integrating their thinking with CENTCOM — an operationally largely Arab command — while the Americans working with the IDF continue to be EUCOM? Is someone thinking that a Palestinian army should not be partnered with the IDF, but with Arab armies? Yes, we are channeling a report from January that said overtures had been made to move the PA to CENTCOM — to which Gen. Petraeus said such overtures had not been made, and we believed him. Yes, we are also channeling a report that said CENTCOM was "red teaming" the idea that the U.S. should engage Hamas (and Hezbollah). The reports were by the same person, and refuted by people we trust, but still, it is hard not to think that somewhere in the U.S., military people are taking the approach that Hamas (and Hezbollah) is not an enemy of the U.S., but only of Israel. From there, they can "solve" the "Palestinian problem" with the "two-state solution" and declare victory. In fact, Hamas is an avowed enemy not only of Israel, but of Fatah, Israel and America's current Palestinian partner and the object of Dayton's army's training.[1] It is impossible to consider American engagement of Hamas while training the army that wants to destroy it — unless you are training a PA army for national purposes regardless of what the future Palestinian government decides to do with it, for example, use it against Israel, not Hamas. MG Moeller will take over a force with three immediate issues — one Palestinian and two American. 1) Over the past several months, reports of Palestinian dissatisfaction with LTG Dayton have surfaced along with increased resistance to his management. Fatah clearly wants American money and training, but then wants us out of the way. Salam Fayyad, the American governments' favorite Palestinian, said LTG Dayton is involved in "training and only training," and "does not interfere in the security mission of the Palestinian Security Services." The PA appears to believe LTG Dayton is too "hands on." 2) The U.S. GAO, on the other hand, believes he is too "hands off." On 10 July, GAO issued a critical report entitled, "U.S. Assistance Is Training and Equipping Security Forces, But the Program Needs to Measure Progress and Faces Logistical Constraints." The report says, "Although U.S. and international officials said that U.S. security assistance programs for the PA have helped to improve security conditions in some West Bank areas, State and USSC have not established clear and measurable outcome-based performance indicators to assess progress." The report, quoting State Department officials, notes the failure of the NSF (the "army") to coordinate with the PCP (the civil police) "despite U.S. programs that encourage NSF units to work with the police and other security forces." Perhaps because they have different end games in mind. 3) The third problem is definitional — Americans often state Palestinian goals in terms that work for the US, not necessarily for the Palestinians (see Andrew Shapiro's definition of Palestinian national goals in JINSA Report #1008). The GAO notes, "[Documents] for the U.S. Consulate General in Jerusalem identify performance indicators... however, the targets they set to measure progress toward these indicators focus on specific program outputs, such as the number of battalions or personnel trained and equipped, rather than on broader program outcomes such as helping the PA meet its Roadmap obligations to achieve the transformation of its security sector and create a professional, right-sized PASF [Palestinian Authority Security Forces]." Has anyone ASKED the Palestinians if they PLAN to meet their Roadmap obligations? Has anyone ASKED the Palestinians if they WANT to create a "right-sized PSAF" and what "right-sized" means to them? We didn't think so, but if you don't know that, the PALESTINIAN emphasis on "specific program outputs" unrelated to the UNITED STATES considers the political goals of the Palestinian Army is precisely what we've been worried about. And the fact that MG Moeller's focus on American security issues is CENTCOM-oriented makes us worry that the Palestinian force will be disconnected not only from American policy goals, but from the IDF that currently shares its obsession with Hamas, but which may find itself with a Palestinian army relating to Arab state armies on its borders. [1] And similarly, Hezbollah is an avowed enemy Israel, a multi-ethnic and democratic Lebanon AND of the United States and a forward arm of Iran. email: feedback@jinsa.org
Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@gwinstonglobal.org |
|
CHRISTIANS SPEAK UP: HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS FIND THEIR VOICES
Posted by UCI, July 26, 2010. |
|
This was written by Peggy Shapiro and it appeared yesterday in the American Thinker. |
|
They were both teenage Holocaust survivors who experienced the anti-Semitism of the church even before the Nazis entered their hometowns in Poland. The two eighty-three-year-old women, both named Mania, both short with carefully coiffed blond hair, were in the audience with over 4,000 Christian Zionists at the opening plenary of Christians United for Israel (CUFI) Summit on July 20. Seven pastors spoke, and the two women listened with incredulity to words which defied everything they had ever experienced. The ministers proclaimed that "Israel is not just a Jewish issue. It's a Christian issue. It's an American issue." The underlying tenant of CUFI is "I will bless those who bless you [Israel], And I will curse him who curses you [Israel], Genesis 12:3.3. John Hagee, founder of CUFI, reviewed the history of those who cursed Israel. "What you predict for Israel will be your destiny. Pharoah wanted to drown Jewish children, and he was drowned. Haman wanted to hang Jews and he was hung. It has taken Christians 2,000 years to catch on... We will strive to be a blessing to Israel." The audience, a cross section of America, included high school students, CUFI on Campus groups, senior citizens moving with the assistance of canes, families with children, African-American ministries, Hispanic churches, cowboy churches, urbanites, suburbanites, ranchers, scientists, bond brokers, travel agents and golfers. They were from all fifty states and as diverse as a group can get, yet they spoke with one voice and cheered wildly as the speakers reaffirmed the CUFI pledge that: The Jewish people have a right to live in their ancient land of Israel, and that the modern State of Israel is the fulfillment of this historic right. There is no excuse for acts of terrorism against Israel and that Israel has the same right as every other nation to defend her citizens from such violent attacks. Christian Zionists will "stand up, speak up and never shut up for Israel" until the attacks stop and Israelis are finally living in peace. No one had stood up or spoken up for the Manias the last time Jews were on the precipice of death. Their non-Jewish neighbors turned their backs and closed their eyes. The world was silent when their homes were confiscated, when they were thrown out of schools because Jewish children were not to be educated, and when their families were starved, tormented, and sent off in cattle cars to their deaths in Auschwitz. Now sixty-five years after their liberation from concentration camps, the women heard words which calmed their souls. Here were over 4,000 Christians, and behind these 4,000 were more than 400,000 members of CUFI offering themselves as allies to Jews and the State of Israel in the battle for survival. It was time to pick sides and these Christians were mobilizing on the Jewish side. On one side is Israel, a democracy with shared values for human life, freedom of religion, and the dignity of the individual. "On the other are the unsavory characters of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and the United Nations. The US must stand on the right side." Hagee was certain of the winning side. "Egypt could not enslave Israel; European nations could not assimilate the Jews; dictators and thugs will not annihilate Israel. We are part of the covenant in a battle for the entire Earth... This time Jews do not have to stand alone." One of the Manias, my mother, turned to me and said, "However long I was destined to live, I will now live ten years longer." The outspoken and genuine support throughout the three-day summit did more than apply a salve to deep wounds; it empowered these women to speak up as they had never done before. My mother, almost manic in her excitement, spoke to dozens and dozens of Summit participants, who listened to her story with compassion and gratitude. Everywhere we went in the giant convention center and later on Capital Hill, people greeted her by name. It was the last morning of the Summit when she truly found her voice.
My mother had never spoken to a Senator before. She certainly had
never spoken up to a person in such a high office. When we met with
our two senators, they were both very disappointing in their responses
to our requests to ask the president to implement the Iran sanctions
legislation that had passed the Senate unanimously. One senator, who
had actually co-sponsored the bill, never read it and thought is was a
resolution asking for the UN to act. The other senator equivocated.
When the short meeting ended and the legislators were ready to take
photos with their constituents, my mother walked up to one senator. He
asked her if she wanted a photo. "No, I want to speak to you." "Hmm.
Well I am taking pictures." "I will wait." Wait she did. She asked
him about enforcing strong sanctions against Iran and he said he was
against war. "I am against war. I was in a war, and I know what it
means," She explained. "If Iran gets a nuclear bomb, they told us what
they will do, and I believe them. They will kill Israelis and they
will attack us. We won't be able to avoid war then." He was not able
to placate her with gratuitous statements about his support of Israel.
"Those are nice words. I want to know where you stand on issues that
will determine the fate of Israel, the U.S. and the world."
THE OTHER MANIA'S SILENCE WAS BROKEN LESS PUBLICLY but even more profoundly. First about her silence. Three years ago, Mania went with my family on a first and last journey back to Poland. She was quiet for most of the trip, muttering only soto vocce disparaging remarks. We were walking through the remnants of the Birkenau death camp and passed a flimsy wooden barrack, which was intended for 52 horses and converted into housing for more than 500 inmates. "I was here," she said quietly. No one had known, not even her daughter the story she was about to tell. In the summer of 1944, there were orders for the final liquidation of the Lodz Ghetto, where Mania, her parents, and her little sister had survived starvation and typhus. Knowing that the final days were near, her father had arranged for his family and several others to hide behind the false wall of what had once been his store. Two days before they were set to go into hiding, he was grabbed off the street and sent to Auschwitz. Her mother was frantic with the choice forced upon her. The night that the others went into hiding, she fought with herself whether to join them or try to meet up with her husband, wherever he might be, and share whatever fate awaited him. There were no correct answers in this world turned upside down, so she held on to what she knew to be true-keep the family together. The next day, she and her two daughters were arrested and packed into a cattle car. When the car had its determined number of human cargo, the outside bolts slammed shut and the three set off in the dark. Mania was seventeen when she arrived in Auschwitz after torturous days crammed in a cattle car with her mother and seven-year-old sister. The train doors opened to shouts, barks, clubs, screams and chaos. Her little sister was pushed to one line and she to another. Her mother faced another agonizing decision and only moments to make it. Which daughter would she accompany? She chose the younger. Mania was ignorant of what that decision meant as she was herded into the barracks. She sat on the barrack floor back-to-back with hundreds of other girls, with no room to stretch her legs, no food, no water, and no relief from an awful stench. When the more seasoned inmates spoke about the ovens, Mania was horror struck to learn that her mother and sister were among the ashes. She did not scream. She couldn't. She had lost her voice. For three days, she sat starved and crushed on the floor and could not utter one word. (Language no longer served her.) Since that day, she has remained a very quiet woman, speaking only when other options aren't available. At the CUFI Summit, Mania was not able to articulate her reactions other than, "I can't believe it. I can't believe it." At the Wednesday evening Night to Honor Israel, she was stunned to hear a beautiful rendition of the Israeli national anthem and a medley of songs about Jerusalem, all in Hebrew and all accompanied by thousands of Israeli and US flags waving in a sea of people. There she was, proudly, joyously standing and waving flags. When people started dancing, this woman who never dances, ran up and grabbed the hands of two strangers, and joined in. It was the end of a long day in blazing heat, but she was indefatigable. We returned home on Thursday and met with the family for Shabbat dinner on Friday night. I was describing our experiences at the Summit when Mania interrupted me. It was the first time in the thirty years that I have known her that she has ever interrupted anyone to say anything. Christians speaking up in support of Israel and the Jewish people allowed two Holocaust survivors to renew their hope in the world and find their own voices to shout to the world, "Am Yisroel Chai!" Long live the people of Israel. UCI — The Unity Coalition for Israel
(http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) — is "the largest worldwide
coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200
groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we
have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and
Secure Israel."
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: CHURNING WHEELS
Posted by Arlene Kushner, July 26, 2010. |
|
I am here and functioning. Intense summer heat, grandchildren sleeping over... other writing to be done... With it all, I took a look each day at what there was to write about and thought, this can wait another day. :-) But today I felt it was time. ~~~~~~~~~~ Those churning wheels are moving (if at all) very slowly. Abbas is playing the same game, in spite of pressure from Obama. He is refusing to come to the table for direct negotiations unless we agree upfront to the '67 lines as borders, freeze additional construction in Jewish communities past the Green Line, etc. etc. We all know the litany. He has now received the backing of both Fatah and the PLO for this position. ~~~~~~~~~~ But never mind! Obama is apparently pleased with Abbas and sees the U.S.-PA relationship as "improving." At least this is what we're hearing from the State Department: Just days ago, the State Department announced that the status of the Palestinian Authority/Palestinian Liberation Organization Mission in the United States will be changed from "bureau" to "general delegation." This will allow the mission to fly the PLO/PA flag outside of its office. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the change represented an improvement in the U.S. relationship with the Palestinian Authority. In light of that refusal by Abbas to go to direct talks — even as this is being strongly urged by Obama — it is difficult to understand on what basis the "improvement" is being assessed. There has been no mention by the U.S. of "tough decisions" the PA is being expected to make (in parallel with the tough decisions we are expected to make), and there has not even been a stipulation that the PA terminate its blatant and pervasive anti-Israel incitement. Here we can learn a great deal about U.S. intentions: For anyone hoping that Obama's love offensive with Israel might be serious, this provides food for thought. ~~~~~~~~~~ Abbas made a statement the other day that caught my eye: He said that Israel was creating stumbling blocks to peace; in fact, he claimed, the IDF had entered the West Bank (i.e., Palestinian Arab areas of Judea and Samaria) 900 times in the last three months. Now, I know that the IDF does nightly incursions into these areas to catch terrorists and uncover weapons caches. But according to Abbas's figure, the IDF is averaging 10 operations per night. This struck me as a bit high, and I currently am awaiting an official answer from the IDF on this. It is a stunning figure if it is true. But in any event the point I want to make here stands: The very fact that the IDF has to do many operations nightly (be it 10 or 6) into PA areas is one more reason why we cannot pull out. The PA security forces are not, by themselves, equipped (or motivated) to stop terrorism as we do. There would be a serious increase in terrorism, were the IDF to withdraw. This, obviously, is not the case Abbas intended to make. But it stares us in the face. ~~~~~~~~~~ Recently, Foreign Minister Lieberman made a suggestion: Let's wash our hands of Gaza entirely. Build a fence at the border with Gaza so nothing goes in, stop the naval blockade, and permit the EU and whoever else to build electric generators and desalination plants in Gaza. Then tell the people there they're on their own. They'd generate their own electricity (we now supply 70%!), produce their own water (we help in that respect now too), bring in their humanitarian and commercial goods via the sea (instead of our supervising and monitoring by land), and we'd have no more responsibility for anything, and — in theory — no headaches. While I understand the desire to be rid of this situation, I consider this a terrible solution. For the most important goal in monitoring what goes into Gaza is to stop the transfer of weapons. That's what the sea blockade is all about. Were we to take down that blockade, Iran would have a field day, freely transferring sophisticated weaponry to the terrorists of Gaza. The rockets and missiles would sail easily over that fence and we'd have headaches aplenty. ~~~~~~~~~~ I mention this because of a piece written by Yonaton Halevi, a senior researcher on the Middle East and radical Islam for the JCPA, on this very subject. Halevi is looking at an entirely different, and very important, aspect of this situation. For it seems that the PA and Hamas — who, says Halevi, have an identical goal — are opposed to setting Gaza free in the fashion described by Lieberman. The Palestinian Arabs, suggests Halevi, want to "keep the lava of the refugee problem at full boil, as this constitutes the key to the ultimate objective of the historic Palestinian odyssey — the liquidation of the State of Israel as a Jewish state. This is the real reason behind the Palestinian love affair with the "Israeli occupation." (Note: the Palestinian Arabs claim that Gaza is still "occupied.") This merits a careful read.
~~~~~~~~~~ A two ship flotilla may be leaving soon from Lebanon, to try, once again, to break the Gaza blockade. In response to a letter addressing this matter sent to the UN by Israeli Ambassador to the UN Gabriela Shalev, UN Spokesperson Martin Narisky said: "There are established paths for the transfer of goods into the Gaza Strip by land. This is the proper way to transfer aid to the residents of Gaza. We prefer that any additional aid will be sent via land, especially during this sensitive time following the recent proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinians." A switch. ~~~~~~~~~~ With regard to the blockade, you might want to see this: "The Legal Basis of the Blockade of Gaza," by Ruth Lapidoth, Professor Emeritus in International Law at Hebrew University: http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=4402&TTL=The_Legal_Basis_of_Israel's_Naval_Blockade_of_Gaza ~~~~~~~~~~ I have never found arguments for our retention of the land in Judea and Samaria that are based exclusively on security issues to be satisfactory. For they totally overlook the legal right we have to the land, our history in the land, and all the rest. If doing so doesn't put us at risk from a security perspective, it's OK to give away our heritage? That said, I concede that there is a certain power (forgive the pun) to this bottom-line argument. It is valid as one reason for not surrendering the land — one very serious and solid reason. And it has impact in places where arguments about our heritage might not carry the day. The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and Director Dore Gold in particular, have actively promoted the argument for secure borders. Recently, the JCPA put out "Israel's Critical Security Needs for a Viable Peace." This is a study of the issues that brought together a group of senior IDF generals. The link below brings you to a page that includes a video, a summary of the study, the assessment of each of the generals independently, and an opportunity to download the full study.
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
LOCALS AND NATIONALS WEIGH IN ON GROUND ZERO MOSQUE;
ISRAEL WATER TO PA VILLAGE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 26, 2010. |
|
U.S. FINES N. KOREA FOR TERRORISM BY PALESTINIAN ARABS AND JAPANESE A U.S. court has fined North Korea for terrorism in Israel by Palestinian Arabs and Japanese. U.S. District Court in San Juan, Puerto Rico ordered defendants to pay $378 million to two families for an attack by the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Japanese Red Army in Lod Airport, Israel, in May, 1972. The terrorists loaded weapons on an airplane going from Italy to Israel. When they got their baggage, they retrieved the weapons and shot 26 people dead and wounded 80 others. The tried to blow up airplanes, but did not succeed. Most of the victims were Catholic pilgrims from Puerto Rico. Two of the terrorists were killed, and the third was imprisoned. The Court found that North Korea provided the terrorists with, finances, intelligence, training, and materiel. For 20 years, N. Korea ran 30 training camps for terrorists, at which N. Korean personnel conducted the training. More recently, N. Korea helped Hizbullah build the underground bunkers that helped it resist Israeli retaliation. Assistance to terrorism was one reason that the State Dept. listed N. Korea among the terrorist states. The Bush administration removed N. Korea from the list, in the hope that would encourage it to negotiate and negotiate over its nuclear weapons development. N. Korea still was on the list when the suit began, and was a major factor in the court's ruling. Defense attorneys declare, "For the first time the terror victims are showing North Korea that there is a cost involved for its blatant support for terrorism." For More Information: info@israellawcenter.org (received from IMRA, 7/24/10). Years ago, proof came out that Arafat was coached in diplomatic ruses by North Vietnam and given Soviet help, particularly through Communist Romania.
ABBAS CLAIMS TO HAVE WON OVER U.S. JEWRY Palestinian Authority head Abbas told his Fatah Party central committee that his trip to Washington won over U.S. Jewry. He claims their support against Israeli PM Netanyahu now, not only from the leftist Americans for Peace Now and J Street, but also from AIPAC, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, and Anti-Defamation League. Abbas said that although PM Netanyahu advised those organizations not to believe him, Abbas' speech to them, condemning incitement to violence, violence, and Holocaust denial, persuaded them that Israel has a peace partner in him. Now, he says, they wonder whether he has a peace partner in Israel. He claims they told him they were going to demand of Netanyahu that he disassemble his coalition or agree to a two-state outcome (Arutz-7, 7/23/10). (For documentation of Abbas' role against peace-making,
click here.)
NEW YORKERS AND NATIONAL FIGURES WEIGH IN ON GROUND ZERO MOSQUE New Yorkers, Democrats, and Republicans are reacting to the proposed mosque near ground zero, as the issue spreads beyond the city. Republican gubernatorial candidate, Carl Paladino reportedly said in a radio ad that he would prevent the mosque construction by using eminent domain to buy the land. Mr. Paladino called the mosque disrespectful to people killed at that site and to U.S. troops fighting the terrorism that attacked New York's World Trade Center. He senses widespread opposition to the mosque site by New Yorkers outside of Manhattan. His spokesman suggested to the Wall St. Journal that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is too narrowly focused on Manhattan to see the broader issue and public opinion. Minimizing Mr. Paladino's vow, Mayor Bloomberg predicted to the Wall St. Journal that the candidate would lose the election. Bloomberg framed the issue as a matter of tolerance. Speaking for Gov. David Paterson, Morgan Hook agreed with the Mayor on both the election and the issue. Mr. Hook finds that state officials do not believe that the power of eminent domain could apply to this situation. Both U.S. Senators from New York, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillebrand, do not oppose the mosque. Sen. Gillebrand accused opponents of exploiting the issue for political reasons and based on intolerance. Another Democrat, Andrew Cuomo, who is a candidate for governor, already had supported construction. Still another candidate for governor, but on the Republican ticket, Rick Lazio, had asked Comptroller Cuomo to investigate the source of funding for the mega-mosque, as have, states Mr. Lazio's spokesman, Barney Keller, Americans from all over demanded. Two Republicans, Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, and Sarah Palin, former candidate for Vice-President, both oppose a mosque being put there (Michael Howard Saul, Wall St. Journal, 7/23/10, A19). In my series on that mosque, most sentiment on the placards and by the people I interviewed at a rally against the mosque opposed the mosque only at that site. The series cited indications that the mosque is being funding by radicals; mosque public relations efforts stress moderation. The imam describes the prospective mosque as a center for reconciliation; opponents describe it as symbolizing a successful attack on the U.S. and as a natural gathering place for radicals. From the New York office of Hudson Institute, director Herb London, who spoke at the rally against the mega-mosque, told me that "nobody is demanding that Muslims not build mosques and worship." Opponents of the mega-mosque object only to that site, as "inappropriate" and a matter of taste and understanding. It is inappropriate where "radical elements of that religion killed 2,800 Americans." So this is "not a matter of the First Amendment" [freedom of religion.] Mr. London said, "Tolerance does not mean license without limits." (Telephone, 7/26/10.) I also elicited written comment from Narain Kataria of Queens, New York, president of the Indian American Intellectuals Forum. Mr. Kataria cast his opposition to the mega-mosque as principled dissent, an American right and privilege, not a matter of intolerance. Rather, the use of invective against dissenters is a ploy to silence their Constitutional freedom of expression. Mr. Kataria said: 1. The murderers of the 3,000 civilians at Ground Zero considered themselves devout Muslims. They were indoctrinated mostly in Wahabbi Saudi Arabian mosques. Those mosques foster an "extreme form of Islam" that "extols the virtue of violence and hatred." Their goal is to subjugate the world, and establish Islamic law, in the U.S. and everywhere. 2. About three-fourths of mosques in the U.S. are controlled by Wahabbi Muslims. 3. Turkish PM Erdogan, said "The Mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers." He is describing mosques not just as places in which to worship but also as rallying sites for jihad. 4. Yes, "It is not right to say that all the Moslems are terrorists. But it also is a well known fact that all the terrorists who mercilessly slaughtered innocent men, women and children in Mumbai, Bali, Madrid, Beslan, London, Delhi, Nigeria, Africa and Thailand were the followers of Radical Islam. Since 9/11//2001," they "have killed more than 75,000 people." "It is inappropriate and unjustified to lightly dismiss the views of those who have seen Islam, Hadith and Sira in action in South Asia. Hindus have suffered unprecedented brutalities and savagery at the hands of Islam during the last 1400 years." They slew millions and "...have converted one third of Hindus in India at the point of a sword." Their way is "incompatible with our Constitution" and democracy. 5. "Citizens who oppose a mosque near Ground Zero believe that it is not only offensive," Kataria states, "but also reprehensible to build the mosque where 3000 innocent people were mercilessly murdered by devout Moslems "
UN ADVISES LEBANON FLOTILLA TO USE LAND ROUTE Referring to the Lebanon flotilla, United Nations Spokesperson Martin Narisky said, "We prefer that any additional aid will be sent via land, especially during this sensitive time following the recent proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinians." Israel's UN Ambassador Gabriella Shalev observed that the flotilla's only purpose is to break the arms embargo. She reserved Israel's right to self-defense against arms importation. In addition, she wrote, the flotilla may very well be carrying weaponry or people seeking confrontation. Israeli Defense Min. Barak finds the flotilla "an unnecessary provocation." (IMRA, 7/25/10.) Background: There are two land routes to Gaza: (1) Through Israel, from its port at Ashdod overland to Gaza. Israel inspects and then transfers legitimate goods; (2) Through the Sinai. Egypt does not always let convoys through. The UN statement implies concern that a clash would leave the Palestinian Arab negotiators feeling constrained to break off negotiations with Israel. The clash with the Turkish flotilla put Turkish PM into position to denounce Israel, thereby boosting his popularity in the Arab world and before Turkish elections. We reported some people's impression that this was intended. What is the intent behind the Lebanon flotilla, whose stated purpose is humanitarian, when the blockade had ended for all but weapons and dual use materials?
ISRAEL WATERS P.A. VILLAGE Although the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) is responsible for providing water to towns in its area, the P.A. village of A'Tawani, in the Hebron Hills area, appealed to the Israeli Civil Administration for water. To accommodate, Israel is hooking the village up with the Israel National Water Carrier (IMRA, 7/25/10). Background: Israel has had a long drought and water shortage. It is spending large sums, as we reported, on desalination plants.
HAMAS AND HIZBULLAH SOLIDARITY WITH SUDAN AGAINST ARREST WARRANTS Hamas and Hizbullah back Sudan against the UN, as the International Criminal Court issued a second arrest warrant against Sudan President Omar al-Bashir. The warrant is for genocide. Both organizations condemned the international justice system as a tool of the great powers, especially of the U.S.. Ironically, those organizations prompt supporters to use international and national justice systems as tools for publicity against the legitimacy Israel. They sue Israeli leaders. The second warrant is for: "genocide by killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and 'deliberately inflicting on each target group [of three groups) conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction.'" The first warrant, still outstanding, is "for five counts of crimes against humanity (murder, extermination, forced transfer, torture, and rape) and two counts of war crimes (intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities, and pillaging)." Hamas chief Isma'il Haniyah stated his objection: "Even as the international community remains silent over real crimes and state-sponsored terrorism directed against the Palestinian people in Gaza and those who sympathize with them, [false] allegations are leveled against the Sudanese president, Omar al-Bashir". Hizbullah echoed the sentiment IMRA, 7/25/10).
LEBANON FLOTILLA CLASH WITH ISRAEL LIKELY The Terrorism Intelligence and Information Center [in Israel] assesses a violent clash by the Lebanon flotilla, not yet headed for Gaza, as likely. Although most passengers do not seek violence, the organizer, Yasser Qashlaq, may. He already anticipates a clash, but states it would be started by Israelis. The flotilla sponsor is the Free Palestine Movement, but the Terrorism Intelligence and Information Center believes that the Movement is a front for Iran and Syria. Implication is that Iran and Syria, which sponsor terrorism, want violence. Mr. Qashlaq made his inclination to violence clear in an interview with Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV on June 19, 2010. He said that "the day will come when the ships will take the remainder of the European garbage which came to my country back to their homelands, Gilad Shalit will return to Paris, and they [the leaders of Israel] will return to Poland. Let the murderers go home. After they return we will pursue them everywhere all over the world and try them in court for the slaughters they have carried out from Dir Yassin to this day." The Center believes that the purpose of the flotilla is another media circus like the one Turkey achieved (IMRA, 7/25/10).
IS UN GOLDSTONE FOLLOW-UP COMMITTEE OBJECTIVE? The UN has a three-member committee to follow up on the Goldstone Report: to evaluate how efficient, independent, and in line with internationally accepted standards Israel's court system is. Is that committee objective? The committee comprises Christian Tomuschat of Germany, Param Cumaraswamy of Malaysia, and Mary Davis of the U.S., all in the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ). According to Gerald Steinberg of NGO-Monitor, critics of the ICJ accuse it of anti-Israel bias, first noticed during Israel's 2002 offensive against Jenin. Mr. Steinberg puts this into the pattern of UN cooperation with ideological NGOs [some of which provided the bulk of the Goldstone Report[, as we documented months ago and again here]. In a 2002 study of counter-terrorism, Mr. Tomuschat suggested, "In such instances, there is little hope that the judicial system of the state concerned will conduct effective investigations and punish the responsible agents. Nowhere have excesses committed by security forces been adequately punished." "If a state strikes blindly against presumed terrorists and their environment, accepting that together with the suspects other civilians lose their lives, it uses the same tactics as the terrorists themselves. In this perspective, many actions carried out by the Israeli military in the occupied Palestinian territories would also have to be scrutinized very carefully." "Normally," he went on, "states see themselves as guardians of human rights. However, by ordering the systematic commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity they themselves deserve the same blame as those targeted by them." In 2007, Tomuschat, discussed Israel's assassination of Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin three years earlier: "Targeted killings are as ruthless as the attacks of terrorists." Tomuschat said that Israel's targeted killings are close to being "state terrorism." Tomuschat asserts non-bias partly on the basis of having participated in forums in Israel. Tomuschat refused to recuse himself when it was learned that he had helped prepare a report for the Palestinian Authority on legal aspects of the "peace process," in which he advised it to bring a case before the UN General Assembly for referral to the International Court of Justice. He had not disclosed that interest in one side of the Arab-Israel conflict to Israel, when he was appointed to the monitoring committee (IMRA, 7/25/10 from Benjamin Weinthal of Jerusalem Post). In an earlier report, we quoted an Israeli explanation that targeted killing is a part of warfare that minimizes casualties by not having to bring heavy ground forces into a civilian area against a legitimate military/criminal target. Such forces would encounter resistance and therefore produce more casualties. Israel tries to minimize collateral casualties. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
HOW THEY VOTE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
Posted by Ralph Rubinek, July 25, 2010. |
|
Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations records: Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time. Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time. Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time. Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time. Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time. Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time. Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time. Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time. Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time. Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time. Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time. Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time. India votes against the United States 81% of the time. Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time. Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time. U. S. Foreign Aid to those that hate us: Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid. And we buy their oil with our money? Jordan votes 71% against the United States And receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid. Pakistan votes 75% against the United States Receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid. India votes 81% against the United States Receives $143,699,000 annually. WHY? WHO IN THE HELL STARTED THIS AND WHY? We need to cut off their allowances THEY ACTUALLY BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS THEM. Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers, who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay their taxes (and gasoline). Pass this along to every taxpaying citizen you know. Disgusting isn't it? http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/unvote.asp |
|
WE HAVE CREATED THIS MESS; BAD EXCHANGE RATE; BARAK MUST BE COURT-MARTIALED!
Posted by Steven Shamrak, July 25, 2010. |
|
We have Created this Mess!
Only by acknowledging our own mistakes we are able to fix them, change direction and make a difference! We ourselves (from a common man to the top of the pyramid, including the courts and police) have taught Israeli Arabs that they are allowed to do everything they want. They can build houses and villas without a mortgage or construction permission. They can pay no municipal taxes. They can live on land which does not belong to them. They can even get electricity for free just because they are Muslims. Those of them who go to Mecca get free immunization (if a Jew goes to Africa, he/she pays for immunizations). They are allowed to have their local councils run a deficit of tens of millions NIS — we pay for them out of our pockets. They are allowed to have several wives and dozens of children, receiving tens of thousands of shekels a month from National Insurance. (When I retired the National Insurance Leumi told me that the cashier had no money). They can engage in criminal racketeering in Beersheba and extort money from businesses and yet the police take no action. They can steal equipment from Jewish farmers worth of tens of millions and 'not be found'. They can drive a car even having dozens of traffic violations. They can demand and receive unemployment benefits and work for cash. They can cheer the enemies of Israel during a war, but if a "Katyusha" hits them accuse us of killing them. After all of this — they are still citizens of Israel and they are allowed to vote and elect members of the Knesset. Their representatives receive a government salary, go into hostile countries and slander the country they are supposed to represent. In the Knesset they feel free to criticize and lecture the state of Israel and the IDF. All of those 'privileges' they have been receiving from your own hands. And we are still silent in the name of freedom of speech (and fake political correctness and due to gutlessness of the Jewish leadership). Would they be allowed to behave in this way in other countries (especially a Muslim one)? If and when Israel tries to do something about their dreadful behaviour, we are immediately criticised and demonised: "Racists!", "Discrimination!" This is their tactic and the scam run by their international anti-Semitic backers! In my own home I feel like a second class citizen. I do not like the fact that they are called "citizens" of my beautiful country. Arabs have become first class citizens in Israel and have been enjoying all of their civil rights without any of the responsibilities! Jews are now the second class people in their own country, carrying the burden of all responsibilities on their shoulders, but still need to fight for their rights. We need a leadership that understands that if we continue with this shameful behaviour by the state, in a few years, Galilee and the Negev will not will be ours! We need a leader who understands that, with all due respect to every Arab, Israel is more important to Jews than anything else. The whole point of the long overdue and needed leadership is to restore order and remove all this rot from Jewish land! This letter is dedicated to memory of my mother
Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak There were never any Jordanian or Palestinian nations! There were never countries Jordan or Palestine! In 1922 over 80% of land, which was called at the time Palestine and was designated by the League of Nations to the restoration of a Jewish state — "Eretz-Israel", was ceded to Arabs by the British in a business transaction! Bad Exchange Rate. Israel has transferred 50 million shekels to Gaza banks and is slated to offer another 50 million shekels (around 26 million U.S. dollars) in total in the recent days. In return Gaza Arab terrorists fired four Kassam rockets at Israeli targets over Shabbat. No Pressure — Fake Peace Process Goes Nowhere! US President Barack Obama urged Abbas in a telephone call to move from the current indirect or proximity talks to direct negotiations with Israel. But the Palestinian Authority said it would start direct negotiations, suspended since December 2008, only after progress in the proximity talks on borders and security. New Luxury Mall for 'Poor Refugees' in Gaza. As Hamas leaders complain Israel is causing poverty, a new luxury mall opens in Gaza, complete with air conditioning, Israeli and foreign goods. (It is the best kept secret that so-called Palestinians, due to anti-Semitic international attitude and oil dependency, are the best kept professional refugees in the world!) Greece Moves into Turkey's Slot. After losing its "only Middle East ally", Israel and Greece are heading for an advantageous strategic partnership. Prime Minister Papandreou hopes for help in overcoming Greece's economic crisis and upgrading his armed forces. 'Progress' Made with Muslim Women's Rights. The Muslim teacher, Abdullah Aal Mahmoud, in what is apparently a mark of progress for Muslim women's rights, states that the Quran teaches the limitations "if the husband wants to use beatings to treat is wife." He ruled that wife-beating should never be done in front of children and "must not cause bleeding or bruises to her body." Breaking bones also is forbidden. Europe is Always Committed to Enemies of Jews. The foreign affairs chief for the European Union said on Saturday that the alliance is committed to so-called Palestinian statehood and to improving the situation in Gaza. Ashton announced the allocation of additional 40 million euros ($52 million U.S. dollars) in direct financial support from the EU to the PA. Turkey Betrayed NATO's Trust. Syrian troops have been locked in battle with Kurdish fighters since Assad's army blasted four north-eastern Syrian Kurdish towns in late June. Hundreds of Kurds are reported dead. The Syrian forces are backed by Heron spy drones which Israel sold to Turkey, which has become the first NATO member to share advanced western military technology with a state that sponsors terror. (Once again, the international press has shown no interest to cover this story! Neither do we any hear 'noise' and rebuke from Washington, London and Brussels ! In the past, Israel came under intense pressure from the US not to sell arms even to India.) Quote of the Week: "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." — Plato, Greek philosopher. Faking Progress of the Fake Peace Process. In a symbolic move, the US on Friday upgraded the status of Palestine Authority's diplomatic mission in Washington. Officials told media that the Palestinian mission in Washington will now be called the "General Delegation of the Palestine Liberation Organization," with permission granted for flying (this terrorist organisation) the PLO flag for the first time. Barak Must be Court-martialed!
Israel's chief of staff Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazi, and Navy commander, Maj. Gen. Eliezer Marom, reported that a fierce clash developed aboard the ship as the soldiers dropped on deck from helicopters and were mobbed by passengers... Each Israeli commando who shinnied down the ladder from a helicopter was besieged and separated from the unit, then beaten, stabbed and assaulted with flying objects. Some were pushed down into the hold and stripped of their anti-flak vests first. The soldiers reported they barely escaped lynching or possibly being taken hostage... Surely the operation's planners (if they were not blinded by political stupidity) must have taken into account that the 600 mixed nationals aboard the Turkish vessel... The Border Police was bettered qualified to handle themselves against the arsenal the activists aboard the Turkish vessel used against the navy men, of firebombs, stun grenades, broken glass, slingshot, iron bars, axes and knives — and with far less risk of loss of life& This error was compounded by the planners seriously underestimating expected resistance and sending the men in armed with paintball guns and pistols with orders to shoot only if their lives were at risk. They did open fire, but only after half a dozen of their number were badly hurt... "Israel's current Defense Minister Ehud Barak may be the worst General ever produced by the IDF (Israel Defense Forces). Moreover, he should have been court-martialled many times over for his stupidity that cost the lives of so many soldiers" — Emanuel A. Winston: In 1973, Barak botched a rescue operation during the "Chinese Farm" battle near the Suez Canal and failed to rescue soldiers under the command of General Yitzhak Mordechai. In 1982, during Operation Peace for Galilee — in which Israel attacked PLO and terrorist groups in Lebanon — Barak commanded the IDF in the eastern region of South Lebanon. He ordered an attack at Sultan Yakoub, in which Israeli soldiers were ambushed by Syrian army commandos and PLO guerrilla units. Five years later, when the "first intifada" broke out, Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin assigned Ehud Barak, Amram Mitzna, and Dan Shomron — whose political views trumped military necessity — to quell the rebellion. They failed miserably. This not only encouraged Palestinian terrorists, especially Fatah and Hamas, but led to the PLO's rehabilitation and the disastrous Oslo Accords in 1993, which Barak implemented (and still supports by anti-Jewish acts). In May 2000, Barak ordered a retreat from South Lebanon. Although the action was debatable, the chaotic manner in which it was carried out and the abandonment of the SLA has been widely condemned. Barak's action gave Hezbollah its first victory. In January 2009, as defense minister, Barak was directly responsible for the Cast Lead operation in Gaza. While the action to stop terrorists and missile bombardment was necessary, it (was a complete failure as there were no clear objectives set and) resulted in the Goldstone Report and international condemnation. Hamas remained in power, more smuggling tunnels were built, and Gilad Shalit is still in captivity. As prime minister and former chief of staff, Barak receives more than NIS 400,000. In addition the state funded his bureau at a cost of NIS 3.2 million in 2004 and NIS 1.8 million in 2005. They estimated Barak's total annual income at NIS 10 million. Barak was involved in a number of companies and hedge funds. His business interests today are held by members of his family. PS: "Barak caused us to run away from Lebanon, supported the disengagement, and managed the Cast Lead debacle, and now he wants to conduct more withdrawals in the future. He's like a battered woman, who instead of standing up to her attacker thinks again and again about how she should make more concessions" said Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau. Steven Shamrak was involved in the Moscow Zionist movement. He worked as a construction engineer at the Moscow Olympic Games project and as a computer consultant in Australia. He has been publishing an Internet editorial letter about the Arab-Israel conflict since August 2001 and has a website www.shamrak.com. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak@gmail.com |
|
THE TERRORIST WHOSE DAUGHTER WAS CURED
Posted by Barry Rubin, July 25, 2010. |
|
You might also like to read:
This is a remarkable story in human terms but there is an extremely important point for understanding the Middle East embedded in it as well. On June 14, Palestinian terrorists opened fire on a police car travelling on a road, en route from Beersheba to Jerusalem. One policeman, Yeheshua Sofer was killed. Two others were wounded. Sofer was due to be married in three months. It took a month but members of the cell were finally captured. They spoke quite freely about this attack and others they had planned for killing Israelis. During the interrogation, one of the leaders remarked that only two weeks earlier his six-year-old daughter had been given a free operation in Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem to remove a tumor from her eye. The operation had been paid for by an Israeli organization. Reading this, I recall a number of similar past instances. In one famous case, the Palestinian who later attacked Israel had been saved from injuries inflicted by another Palestinian in a quarrel. There have also been examples of terrorists playing on the sympathy of Israelis claiming they needed medical attention — especially in one bloody attack on the Gaza-Israel border — not to mention the use of women and children to smuggle weapons or even to carry out suicide attacks. The Western reader — if he doesn't go in for some elaborate theory in which somehow Israel is still to blame — might see this and other such cases as examples of human ingratitude, the kind of thing often found in private life. There is also a psychiatric explanation: the person involved is in some way deranged, causing him to behave in an "illogical" manner. Yet beyond irony and insanity, both falling short of the needed explanation, this kind of situation is important because it challenges the common Western theme of kindness and concession as inevitably leading to moderation and peace. There is another misleading flip side of this view, too: the concept that what seems like inexplicable violence or "fanaticism" is a direct response to ill treatment. Thus, for those locked into the kindness breeds kindness model (which often does work in personal life), terrorists must be shown to be suffering from poverty or personal suffering (even though statistics show this to be untrue) or understandable outrage at bad treatment (ignoring the possibility of their engaging in alternative behavior, like making a compromise peace or building a democratic society). Yet the main missing explanation explaining such behavior is ideology and world view. If you think that the divine being has ordered you to wipe out Israel and the Jews (or Christians and the West also), if you have no self-critical facility whatsoever, if you believe (and are told by the West) that you are always a victim, if you put a priority on revenge rather than improving your situation, and if you view your opponent as sub-human (racism is more frequently deployed by elements in some parts of the "Third World" against the West than vice-versa nowadays, whatever was true in the past), then your conscience will be untroubled by having your daughter healed as a gift and trying to kill the maximum number of Israelis thereafter. Where have things been different? Obviously, one can insist on one's dignity and right to have a country of one's own without developing such behavior. We have seen this in dozens of cases over previous decades. You don't have to invoke such names s Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King Jr or Mahatma Gandhi in this case. Quite average nationalist leaders far from sainthood have pulled it off repeatedly. Indeed, such an approach is not only more moral but more effective. After all, if you are willing to compromise with your opponent, the latter is more willing and able to give you more of what you want. If the Palestinian movement had adopted such an approach — which is still lacking to this day — there would have been a Palestinian Arab state in 1948 (UN partition), or in 1979 (Anwar al-Sadat peace initiative) or in 2000 (Camp David/Clinton plan), or at many other times in history. Of course, there are cases — fewer but genuine — of individual Palestinians saving the lives of Israelis who would otherwise have been murdered. But here's the catch: those people have to hide their identities from other Palestinians while to kill deliberately Israeli children, even in 2010, makes one a hero. Moreover, it is also misleading to conclude that people want to wipe out Israel because it is doing something so horrible — that there is a proportionality at work here — as to justify such treatment. Again, the problem lies in the ideology and worldview of the radicals, as well as their expectation of total victory, that drives the process. Israelis as a whole discovered this between 1992 and 2000. Sympathy, an attempt to provide a balanced narrative, aid, payments, concessions, compromises, offers all failed. Indeed, not only did they fail but in many respects these actions made things worse — at least more dangerous — for those who tried that method. One of the times I came closer to being killed so far was when an Arab driver returning from taking supplies to the Gaza Strip or bringing workers into Israel so they could make living smuggled in a suicide terrorist. Six months after the day I saw the dead killed by that attack in the street around the corner from my home, a high-ranking U.S. diplomat told me — with pomposity and a slur on Israel that would have marked him as a vicious antisemite if he weren't a Jewish careerist — that no terrorist had ever come into Israel that way. Incidentally, and this is an absolutely true story, the day before the March 1996 bombing, I had passed by a woman in full Islamist dress (by no means normally dressed for an Israeli Arab Muslim woman who might merely wear modest clothing and a hijab) outside the Dizengoff Center mall looking at the door (and possibly checking out the security) about 20 yards from where the suicide bomber blew himself up some hours later. I thought to myself: what a great democratic and open country this is that in the midst of a terrorist bombing campaign she could walk through Tel Aviv without anyone bothering her in the least. I wondered later if this was coincidental or part of the terrorist operation. If you want to compare the reality of Israel from the way it is portrayed in biased media and academic writings, ponder that story. These stories are in no way to say that you don't treat children with eye tumors, or not let people make a living or send in supplies, or look askance at people merely because they belong to a specific national or religious group. But you also let wishful thinking take over your mind or allow hopes of gratitude to bolster your expectations in an irrational manner. And you never ever strengthen individuals or organizations who want to kill you and wipe you out on the basis of believing that generosity will make them moderate. This basic calculus, of course, does not apply just to Israel's situation but to a West facing attacks by revolutionary Islamists — including the September 11 terrorists and those in Britain's tube or Spain's railroad attacks — as well. The idea that compromises, concessions, flattery, and gifts are going to buy popularity or immunity will simply not work. Note to Western leaders, academics, and journalists reading this: Remember to condemn the people who commit deliberate terrorist murders and refuse to make real peace, not the ones who operate for free on the "enemy" side's children and take risky concessions to try to achieve peace. Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and
"Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press).
His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).
Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at
http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html.
Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com
|
|
THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION IS DEAD. LONG LIVE WHAT?
Posted by Ted Belman, July 25, 2010. |
|
Before delving into the question of what follows the death of the two-state solution we must get a certificate of death. This may prove to be more difficult than getting a certificate of live birth for President Obama. Everyone prefers to kick a dead horse, so to speak, than to acknowledge it is dead. The Arabs were against the creation of Israel in the first place. They opposed the Palestine Mandate, The Partition Plan, The Declaration of Independence by Israel and Resolution 242. In 1968 they decided at the Khartoum Conference on the three "no's"; no recognition, no negotiation and no peace. Nevertheless both Egypt and Jordan broke with this policy and signed peace agreements with Israel. Anwar Sadat paid for this breach with his life. Arafat had to accept Res 242 as the condition for entering the Oslo accords, He also had to agree to amend Fatah's Charter which called for the destruction of Israel but never did amend it. The Hamas Charter also calls for the destruction of Israel. So the PA is only paying lip service to Res 242 and has no intention of complying with it, The Arab League has yet to accept Res 242. Instead, at the Beirut Conference in 2002, it endorsed the Saudi Plan with certain amendments and called it the Arab Peace Initiative. Neither the Plan nor the Initiative were ever published officially but a communiqué was issued. It demanded full withdrawal, a "just settlement" of the refugee problem and the creation of a "sovereign independent" state with East Jerusalem as its capital. In exchange, they would enter into a "peace agreement" and establish "normal relations" with Israel. Whenever the Arabs talk about peace I am suspect as "peace" in Islam is only achieved when Islam is dominant. Besides Israel will never agree to all these demands. In effect they substituted these parameters for the ones in Res 242. The US cooperated by including the Arab Peace Initiative in the Roadmap. Obama goes so far as to favour the Arab Initiative over Res 242. By putting forward these demands, the Arabs have decided to wage war on Israel diplomatically. The peace process demanded by the Quartet (U.S., E.U., UN and Russia) buttressed by the Arab's nebulous offer of peace, enables them to make demands on Israel and to force her compliance. It is not really about negotiating a settlement so much as it is about imposing a settlement. As times goes on Israel's wiggle room gets smaller and smaller. So, though an ultimate agreement is not achievable because Israel won't agree to the Arab terms and the Arabs won't compromise on them, the Arabs still want to continue the process. Abbas is spared the necessity of compromising and why should he. The Palestinians are doing well economically with the cooperation of Israel and the financial support of the US and the EU. Why look for trouble. For the U.S., it's the only game in town. They are not prepared to pack their bags and go home or to change the paradigm. Better to go through the motions. The process is working to Israel's disadvantage so why is Israel content to go along? So long as the prospect of a two-state solution is out there, Israel does not have to resist calls for bi-national state or for citizenship for the Palestinians. In the meantime, the Palestinians have their autonomy and Israel has its security, insofar as Judea and Samaria are concerned, and an undivided Jerusalem. While Israel would dearly love to sign a settlement deal to put an end to the deligitimation and demonization, the price is too high. The status quo is better. But that doesn't preclude putting facts on the ground. Israel must end the freeze and commence building in Jerusalem and the settlements. Aside from strengthening Israel's hold on Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, Israel is thereby putting great pressure on the Palestinians to compromise. Due to such construction, time would no longer on the side of the Palestinians. That is why the Palestinians have suggested they would unilaterally declare a state or ask the UN to recognize a Palestinian state on all lands east of the '67 borders. Were they to do so, it would be a game changer. Israel has said she wouldn't allow it. It would end the peace process. There is talk in Israel of extending Israeli law to the major settlements presently under occupation law. The Israelis living in them would dearly love the change and it would not affect the Arabs at all. Such a change would effectively make the settlements part of Israel. Another factor that argues for the status quo is that Israel is facing a well-armed Hamas and Hezbollah and genocidal Iran who is about to get the bomb. In the next year there may well be war with Iran. Israel wants to have the US participate. This is not the time for dramatic concessions. Israel must know whether Iran will remain an enemy before determining what if any concessions to make. p>In the meantime the mayor of Jerusalem Nir Barkat intends to implement Jerusalem's ambitious Master Plan presently being finalized. The Plan aims to reverse the current trend whereby Arabs are moving into Jerusalem to be on the west side of the fence and Jews are moving out. The main reasons for this exodus are expensive housing, limited housing opportunities, scant employment opportunities, and relatively low salary levels. The ultimate goal is to have a demographic balance in the city, Jews to Arabs of 60:40 by 2020. It is now 65:35. This is an urgent task for Israel exacerbated by the defacto construction freeze. Its implementation will not be without international and domestic opposition. There are currently 300,000 Arabs living in Jerusalem. Reason enough to consider dividing the city. Even that will not be simple. The City of David, Mount of Olives and Rachel's Tomb are all located in that part of Jerusalem east of the '67 line where the Arabs live. Israelis would never agree to part with this part of their heritage. Five years ago, I advocated annexing Judea and Samaria. Then I was odd man out. No longer. Haaretz, Israel's New York Times, just published, Endgame. " Therefore, I say that we can look at another option: for Israel to apply its law to Judea and Samaria and grant citizenship to 1.5 million Palestinians. Just think; no division of Jerusalem, no transfer of Jews, no border dispute, no international forces,, no air-rights dispute, no water dispute and no right of return. The challenge for Israel will be to avoid civil unrest. She succeeded in Israel. She will succeed in the expanded Israel. Long live the democratic Jewish one-state solution. Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. He now lives in Jerusalem. Contact him at tedbel@israpundit.com |
|
THE ZIONIST LEAGUE FOR PREEMPTIVE SELF-DEFENSE
Posted by Boris Celser, July 25, 2010. |
|
This comes from Fresno Zionism. Is is archived at
|
|
Recently, a fellow mentioned that he was putting together a new pro-Israel organization and that he was trying to decide what to name it. He was considering something like "Peace and Justice for the Middle East." My first thought was that this sounds like an anti-Israel group. All he would need to add would be something about human rights and it would be perfect. Of course this is because the people who want to see an end to the Jewish state have co-opted the language of peace, justice and human rights. They own it now, despite the fact that this entails an Orwellian reversal of meaning. For example, let's take a local organization, Peace Fresno. They support the 'right of return' for Palestinian Arab 'refugees'. Now I know a number of their members and they say they are against all war. I would like to ask them how the influx of several million violently hostile Arabs into tiny Israel would affect matters of war and peace. Would it make things more peaceful? We know that it would be the beginning of a bloody civil war, 1948 all over again except with ten times the number of combatants. We know this because the Palestinians themselves tell us. But they would say that the Palestinian refugees deserve justice. Really? Is it just that the Palestinian Arabs, who started the 1948 war under the leadership of the Nazi Mufti al-Husseini and lost it, should have the result of that war reversed after 62 years? Is it just that other refugees, like the 800,000 Jewish ones who fled Arab countries between 1948 and the 1960's were absorbed by Israel and other countries, but the Arab nations refuse to absorb even one Palestinian? More generally, is it just that there are 23 Arab nations with a combined population of 358 million and one Jewish state with about 5.5 million Jews, and this is intolerable to the Arabs? Is it just that one unelected royal family rules all of Saudi Arabia, where they have institutionalized racism, misogyny and antisemitism? Is it just that Arab terror organizations are rewarded for their murder campaigns? Peace Fresno also calls for justice for the 'victims' among the 'peaceful activists' (Turkish IHH thugs) on board the Mavi Marmara. Justice must mean that you can beat somebody with an iron pipe until his brains start coming out and he is expected to do nothing. 'Justice' must mean something different for Israelis and Turks. And Peace Fresno wants no restrictions on traffic of goods or people in and out of Gaza. Their Hamas friends in Gaza need more building materials, so they can rebuild after the recent war that they started and were losing, at least until the incoming Obama administration made Israel stop fighting. They have already started rebuilding — fortifications and tunnels and a big new prison (with a reinforced basement bunker, I'm sure), not homes. That's how to promote peace. Speaking of human rights, the 'activists' on the Gaza Flotilla, who belonged to multiple organizations with 'peace', 'justice' and 'human rights' in their names, were asked to deliver a message to Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier who was kidnapped four years ago (when he was 19 years old) and has been held incommunicado — in violation of international law — ever since. They refused, because apparently 'human rights' mean something different for Israelis and Arab residents of Gaza. So who wants peace? Israel, which wants to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority (PA), or the PA, which refuses to negotiate unless Israel agrees to all of its demands in advance? Hamas, which — still — fires rockets into Israel and continually probes the border, trying to kidnap more Israelis? Who is more concerned with justice? Israel, whose Supreme Court often issues orders that Palestinian rights require changes in the route of the security fence, whose army command arrests and tries Israeli soldiers for improper behavior in wartime, and which allows security prisoners — even those convicted of multiple murders — access to television and university courses in prison? Or Hamas, which executes 'collaborators' and political opponents without trial, and will not let the Red Cross visit Gilad Shalit in his underground bunker? But it's no use. The language is corrupted. Better he should call his group "The Zionist League for Preemptive Self-Defense," in keeping with the adage that if you can't be liked, you might as well be respected. |
|
SMUGGLERS RENDER EGYPTIAN FENCE USELESS; DOES U.S. IGNORE EVIDENCE OF ILLEGAL FUNDRAISING FOR HAMAS?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 25, 2010. |
|
SMUGGLERS RENDER EGYPTIAN FENCE USELESS 
Two Egyptian officials separately acknowledged that Sinai-Gaza tunnel smugglers pierced the Egyptian fence placed both above-ground and below-ground to stop them. Smugglers have made hundreds of below-ground openings, one per tunnel. One smuggler said it took him five hours to burn a hole through the iron fence. A.P. filmed a smuggler utilizing a blow-torch. Now that Israel lets most goods through, smugglers are not using many tunnels. Fence construction started last year. The half of the fence already built failed to fulfill its ostensible purpose (IMRA, 7/23/10). Unstated was whether Egypt intends to build the other half. IMRA reported then that the U.S. seemed to be subsidizing the project with $50-100 million. IMRA head, Dr. Aaron Lerner, predicted failure. He suggested surer methods for blocking smuggling.
LEBANON LETTING HIZBULLLAH ESCAPE RESPONSIBILITY FOR AN ASSASSINATION According to Hizbullah head Nasrallah, Lebanon PM Saad Hariri told him he will let Hizbullah escape blame for its suspected assassination of his father, Rafik Hariri. The UN is expected to find Hizbullah responsible for that assassination. PM Hariri is expected to excuse the organization by pinning responsibility on the lower level operatives who performed the assassination, as doing it on their own. Narallah supposes that PM Hariri anticipates that if he blames the organization, he would share his father's fate or a renewed civil war that he would lose. Haaretz believes that PM Hariri considers survival more
important than preserving family honor and punish all his father's
murderers. The Israeli daily debunks PM Hariri's distinction in
advance as a false rationalization: "Hizbullah is well known for its
rigid hierarchy, iron discipline and involvement of senior officials
in all decisions at the field level. That makes it highly unlikely
that Hizbullah operatives would have been involved in such an incident
without the senior leadership's knowledge." (IMRA, 7/23/10).
UN ANTICIPATES FINDING ON LEBANON ASSASSINATION 
The UN official said that the UN refuses to let itself be humiliated, and is asking Lebanon to send another 5,000 Lebanese Army troops to help defend UNIFIL. The official described previous instances of stoning of UNIFIL trips by women and children as organized by a "side." He did not name that "side." (IMRA, 7/23/10). Earlier articles have reported that Hizbullah is part of the Lebanese government, that Hizbullah is the dominant military force in the country as proved by its victory in a civil war in which the Lebanese Army was neutral, and that the Lebanese Army is slow to assist UNIFIL is timely inspection of illegal Hizbullah military emplacements. Note that the UN official did not identify the "side" that organized the stoning of his troops. Earlier discussions of the purported evidence seemed to indicate responsiblity further up the chain of command to President Assad of Syria or to Iran.
FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER GINGRICH ON NEW YORK MOSQUE Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich explained his opposition to a mega-mosque proposed for a site near the World Trade Center in New York, the Washington Post reported on July 24. Mr. Gingrich explained that New York City has more than a hundred mosques; this one is not being proposed for lack of access to a house of prayer. He contrasted that number with the number of churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia: Zero. Time to end the double standard, Gingrich said. In fact, he added, Christians and Jews are banned from Mecca. Gingrich framed the issue not as a matter of tolerance in America but as a matter of American submission to aggressive jihad. He explained that the mega-mosque is important for what it means to Muslims, who perceive symbolism that unsophisticated Americans do not. The proposed mega-mosque is called "Cordoba House." "It refers to Cordoba, Spain — the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world's third-largest mosque complex. Today, some of the Mosque's backers insist this term is being used to 'symbolize interfaith cooperation' when, in fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest. It is a sign of their contempt for Americans and their confidence in our historic ignorance." After all, Gingrich points out, the large, proposed mosque complex would overlook "the World Trade Center site — where a group of jihadists killed over 3000 Americans and destroyed one of our most famous landmarks..." Adding to the suspicion, Gingrich said that the Mosque officials refuse to divulge the source of the estimated $100 million cost of the proposed complex. Gingrich challenged those who back the mosque in the name of tolerance: let them demand that Saudi Arabia show the same tolerance to other religions! (IMRA, 7/23/10.) Somewhat fewer than 3,000 were killed in New York. The same plot killed a small number in Pennsylvania. The U.S. had stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, and held off Saddam from conquering that country. U.S. troops were not allowed to practice Christianity openly. We reported some time ago about Christian Bibles being confiscated on arrival at the airport. Saudi Arabia is not known to have Jewish residents.
DOES U.S. IGNORE EVIDENCE OF ILLEGAL FUNDRAISING FOR HAMAS? The U.S. appears to have ignored evidence of illegal fund raising for Hamas at U.C. Irvine. Because the US. declared Hamas a terrorist organization, raising funds for it violates the law. In September, 2009, Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) began furnishing the Justice Dept. with evidence. What had happened? At U.C. Irvine, the Muslim Student Union sponsored a talk by British MP George Galloway on May 21, 2009. He touted an organization, Viva Palestina, which brings convoys of goods and money to Gaza. Gaza is controlled by Hamas. As a videotape shows and witnesses confirm, MP Galloway and the Muslim Student Union passed around collection boxes. The previous March, Galloway brought in a Viva Palestina convoy. In front of top Hamas officials and on Arab TV, he said, "We are giving you now 100 vehicles and all of the contents, and we make no apology for what I am about to say: We are giving them to the elected government of Palestine." Israel's Haaretz newspaper reported that Hamas' minister of social affairs hailed Galloway as a 'hero.'" Later that October, the Investigative Project on Terrorism, run by Steven Emerson, documented Viva Palestina's objective as not charity but support for Hamas. The Project reported, "Viva Palestina's most visible leaders call for the elimination of the State of Israel ... They treat Hamas leaders as the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people and provide both material and moral support to the terrorist organization." Based on this evidence, ZOA urged the U.S. Justice Dept. to investigate for violation of federal law. The request was seconded by U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman, Chair of the House Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. The Conference is an umbrella organization, in which ZOA is one of about 52 members groups. In November, the FBI asked ZOA for a copy of the campus fundraiser videotape. ZOA supplied it, and offered to furnish witnesses. The FBI did not ask for the witnesses' names. There is no indication that the Justice Dept. is proceeding on this. ZOA suggests that it is bad enough if an American campus is used to raise funds for terrorism, but it would be more frightening if the Justice Dept. abdicated its responsibility to prosecute it (7/23/10 press release by Zionist Organization of America, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member)
ISRAELI RIGHT-WINGERS PROPOSE A KIND OF 'ONE-STATE SOLUTION' Israeli right-wingers are proposing a kind of "one-state solution." Former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ahrens of Likud and some Jews of Judea-Samaria propose annexing Judea-Samaria and granting its Arabs citizenship, under certain conditions. The primary condition is that they would have to accept Jewish sovereignty. Another condition is that the Islamist Movement in Israel be banned. Mr. Ahrens says he is afraid that some day the Arabs of Judea-Samaria may, like Hamas, fire rockets into Israel. He concludes that making them citizens would eliminate their bellicosity. Most of the other arguments put forward are lengthy and emotional references to earlier Zionist figures (IMRA, 7/24/10). Considerations not dealt with in the news of the proposal: The Jewish homeland already has been divided. Israel comprises 17% of it, Judea, Samaria and Gaza comprise 4%, and Jordan comprises 79%. The 4% includes strategic heights and natural tank traps, as does the Golan Heights now part of Israel, that in Israeli hands makes for secure borders and in Arab hands would facilitate conquest of Israel. Gaza's omission from the proposal is another division, contradicting Ahren's principle of not dividing the homeland. Why does Mr. Ahrens differentiate the Arabs of Gaza from the Arabs of Judea-Samaria? As we have documented, the leaders of both areas state their view that the whole of Israel belongs to them. Both sets of leaders honor terrorism. If, based on the stated conditions, many Arabs do not want to join the new state and do not want to move away, Israel would, in effect, still have a division, but by population rather than geographically. It would have hundreds of thousands of new Arab citizens sympathetic to the non-citizens opposition to Zionism. The early Zionists were idealistic toward the Arabs. They lacked experience with them. Not a valid basis for contemporaries who have had much, sad experience to predicate proposals on disproved assumptions. In the two generations since then, Palestinian Arabs and other Arabs made more than one attempt to eradicate the Jews. Why would Arabs indoctrinated in hatred of Jews, as we have documented, be more cooperative with the Jews than were their forebears? It sounds determined to say that before letting additional Arabs into the Jewish state, Israel first should ban the Islamist Movement. If those Israelis who set this condition are so determined, why can't they impose the ban now, and see how it works? If they can't impose the ban now, how later, when the demographics are less favorable? They say they would condition citizenship on acceptance of Jewish sovereignty. How do they now they could believe a pledge of allegiance from those whose ideology includes deception of non-believers? Ahrens did not give any signs of understanding and considering the religious basis for the jihad against Israel. While still a minority, the prospective citizens could agree to Israel remaining a Jewish state, though it clashes with their view of Islam. The addition of up to two million Arab citizens would make the minority very large. Sooner or later, they may no longer agree to Israel being a Jewish state. Then what would the Jews there do? When the Palestinian Arabs find that they get concessions because they are willing to fight, and to fight in a terrorist manner, might they not conclude that they could get more concessions by fighting more? Has Ahrens considered all the alternatives, or only the politically correct ones? How would he deal with the perilous or inconsistent aspects of his proposal?
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
KULTURKAMPF ON THE LEFT
Posted by Israel Academia Monitor, July 25, 2010. |
|
In Israel, a bitter battle is being waged between two camps on the left. On Dr. Yehuda (Yehouda) Shenhav's book 'The Time of the Green Line' Yehouda Shenhav, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Tel Aviv University. This article was written by Aryeh Tepper and it appeared April 28, 2010 in Jewish Ideas Daily http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/content/detail/continue-reading- kulturkampf-on-the-left Aryeh Tepper recently completed his Doctorate at Hebrew University in the Department of Jewish Thought. He writes for Jewish Ideas Daily. |
|
Political struggles are usually waged between the left and the right. In contemporary Israel, a bitter battle is being waged between two camps on the left. The issue that divides the two camps is Zionism. The Zionist left wants to consolidate a Jewish-democratic state within the "green line" — hat is, the borders that existed from 1949, fixed by the armistice that ended Israel's war of independence, until the June 1967 Six-Day war — and to help engineer a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The post-Zionist or "radical" left is in favor of a one-state solution, i.e., doing away with Israel as a Jewish state and creating a "state of all its citizens" in its stead. To the Zionist left, the post-Zionist left isn't so much post- as anti-Zionist. But to the post-Zionist left, the Zionist left isn't liberal — or leftist — at all. The latter position is argued vehemently in The Time of the Green Line, a recently published Hebrew book that offers a deep critique of the liberal Zionist left from a radical perspective. Its author is Yehuda Shenhav, an established public intellectual with academic credentials. Shenhav puts forward two large claims about the Zionist left, the first being that it lives in a state of complete denial regarding the fundamentals of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. According to Shenhav, the Zionist left has persuaded itself that the basic point of contention in the conflict lies in the results of the Six-Day war, which ended with Israel having seized the Sinai peninsula (long since returned to Egypt), Gaza (now under Hamas), the Golan Heights (claimed by Syria), and, especially, the West Bank with its large Palestinian population. Therefore, reasons the Zionist left, once Israel hands back the West Bank, "1967" will have been reversed and peace will become possible. To Shenhav, this is a delusion. Zero hour for the Palestinians, he contends, was and remains not 1967 but 1948: i.e., the founding of Israel itself. Averting its eyes from this fact, the Zionist left has fabricated an artificial starting point in time (1967) and space (the green line) in order to preserve to its own satisfaction the basic legitimacy of Israel's establishment in 1948. The trouble is that the Palestinians will never agree to this construction of history, because it fails to take into account their most fundamental grievances. Shenhav's second claim is that the Zionist left's stubborn fidelity to the notion of a specifically Jewish state is inherently anti-democratic. How so? Democracy, writes Shenhav, is more than a matter of individual rights; it is also a matter of collective rights. So long as the collective rights of native Palestinians living within the state of Israel go unrecognized — and, in a state that calls itself Jewish, they are by definition unrecognized — hat state, no matter how much it pretends otherwise, cannot be regarded as democratic in any meaningful sense. Predictably, the heated contentions of The Time of the Green Line have ignited reciprocal heat from the Zionist left. Thus, Gadi Taub, a prominent intellectual and one of Shenhav's favorite targets, has attacked the book as meretricious and utterly irresponsible. An example: in his final chapter, Shenhav offers a number of one-state schemes for sharing the land, including something called "consociational democracy"; in doing so, he silently passes over the inconvenient fact that this fanciful arrangement has already been tried and found wanting in such distinguished islands of tranquility as Cyprus and Lebanon. "Any reasonable person," Taub sums up, "realizes that the one-state solution would constitute a chronic civil war," a war from which posturing professors like Shenhav will be able to escape while those "with nowhere to go — both Jews and Arabs — will end up ... drowning in rivers of blood." Taub's assault on the fantasy of a one-state solution — he demand, as he puts it, that of all the parties to the conflict, the Jews alone must surrender their right to self-determination — is cogent enough. Unfortunately, it is not matched by a sustained engagement with Shenhav's point about the arbitrary character of 1967 and the green line. But that is also understandable. The dimming hopes of Zionist leftists are now pinned to the latest in a very long string of efforts to "solve" the Israel-Palestinian conflict on the basis of the 1967 paradigm. Today's version is associated with the proposal of the Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad, to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank and east Jerusalem within two years. Fayyad is backed by the Obama administration, the international community, the Zionist left, and liberals everywhere. If he succeeds, alternative ways of thinking about the conflict will have been rendered ipso facto irrelevant. But what if Fayyad's plan fails, like so many others before it? Will Zionist leftists (like Taub) urge Western peacemakers to go back to the drawing board yet again? An Israeli rightist might charge that the clash over Shenhav's book reflects the incoherence of both sectors of the Israeli left, an incoherence born of the refusal to face the hard reality of Arab obduracy and determination. Be that as it may, one can easily imagine the counter-charge: namely, that the Israeli right, in declining to count the diplomatic price the country is paying for clinging to the status quo, is at least as blind as the Israeli left. What, then, is one to conclude? Perhaps only that the harsh light of the Mediterranean sun remains too intense for anyone to gaze into it without the aid of colored glasses. This article is archived at
|
|
DESTRUCTIVE SOFT JIHADIS
Posted by Dr. Babu Suseelan, July 24, 2010. |
|
How can a soft Jihadi who misdiagnoses the social disease effectively suggest a remedy? we listen to soft Jihadis, many of them are hard core hidden Jihadis with a mask. They are propagating Jihadism at the expense of gullible infidels. Soft Jihadis are telling us what we want to hear. And more often than not, soft Jihadis do not want to address Islamic reality. To understand hidden agendas of soft Jihadis we need a renewed sense of social responsibility. What we really need is to reexamine our pacifism, tolerance of intolerance and carefully observe soft Jihadis hidden agendas. Everywhere we turn today, we are bombarded by pseudo secularist, Marxist liberals, and soft Jihadis with slogans that exhort us to keep an open mind and not be judgmental. In the middle of all this soft Jihadi muddle is an attitude that prevents any discussion of Jihadi terrorism and evil promoted in the name of Islam. In the real sense, soft Jihadis are engaged in mind manipulation to make us zombies. To move, let alone root out the dead weight of Jihadism, we need an intellectual assault on the political Islamic dogma paraded as religion. Pure Islam promoted by soft Jihadis is against democracy, secularism and freedom of the will. These are essential in a democratic society to make a choice. Soft and hard Jihadis cannot make a choice. Islam forbids choice, freedom of thinking, coexistence with infidels, and all inclusive thought system. In this new world soft and hardcore Jihadis must make a choice between right and wrong, good and evil. After years of aggressive war, looting, plundering and invasion of non Islamic countries by fanatic Islamists, soft Jihadis are still carrying the dysfunctional, destructive dominant Islamic values. Jihadis are anchored in their destructive, sixth century wrong Islamic values. Choice and selection of positive values is a fearful burden for Jihadis. They cannot overcome their limitation since they are permanently imprisoned in Islamic prison serving life term. jihadis often appearing to cling tenaciously to a dysfunctional dogma that is dangerous. They, perhaps by provocative means, instigate death and destruction of kafirs. The subtlety consists in the deftness with which soft jihadis manipulate the system and capitalize upon it, all deliberately of course. In this context, citizens living in democratic countries have a choice to make to save our life and liberty. we have to force Jihadis to freedom. BEWARE OF DESTRUCTIVE SOFT JIHADIS There are several soft Jihadis like John Esposito working for Islamists for few Jihadi breadcrukmbs. How can these soft Jihadis who misdiagnoses the social disease effectively suggest a remedy? we listen to soft Jihadis, many of them are hard core hidden Jihadis with a mask. They are propagating Jihadism at the expense of gullible infidels. Soft Jihadis are telling us what we want to hear. And more often than not, soft Jihadis do not want to address Islamic reality. To understand hidden agendas of soft Jihadis we need a renewed sense of social responsibility. What we really need is to reexamine our pacifism, tolerance of intolerance and carefully observe soft Jihadis hidden agendas. Everywhere we turn today, we are bombarded by pseudo secularist, Marxist liberals, and soft Jihadis with slogans that exhort us to keep an open mind and not be judgmental. In the middle of all thissoft Jihadi muddleis an attitude that prevents any discussion of Jihadi terrorism and evil promoted in the name of Islam. In the real sense, soft Jihadis are engaged in mind manipulation to make us zombies. To move, let alone root out the dead weight of Jihadism, we need an intellectual assault on the political Islamic dogma paraded as religion. Pure Islam promoted by soft Jihadis is against democracy, secularism and freedom of the will. These are essential in a democratic society to make a choice.Soft and hard Jihadis cannot make a choice. Islam forbids choice, freedom of thinking, coexistence with infidels, and all inclusive thought system. In this new world soft and hardcore Jihadis must make a choice between right and wrong, good and evil. After years of aggressive war, looting, plundering and invasion of non Islamic countries by fanatic Islamists, soft Jihadis are still carrying the dysfunctional, destructive dominant Islamic values. Jihadis are anchored in their destructive, sixth century wrong Islamic values. Choice and selection of positive values is a fearful burden for Jihadis. They cannot overcome their limitation since they are permanently imprisoned in Islamic prison serving life term. jihadis often appearing to cling tenaciously to adysfunctional dogma that is dangerous. They, perhaps by provocative means, instigate death and destruction of kafirs. The subtlety consists in the deftness with which soft jihadis manipulate the system and capitalize upon it, all deliberately of course. In this context, citizens living in democratic countries have a choice to make to save our life and liberty. we have to forceJihadis to freedom. |
|
FBI GETS THOUSANDS OF BLOGS CLOSED; ARTIST APOLOGIZES
TO SLANDERED RABBIS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 24, 2010. |
|
FBI GETS THOUSANDS OF BLOGS CLOSED The FBI told BurstNet Technologies that thousands of blogs on one of its sites contain links to terrorist material. BurstNet reports that those materials include lists of Americans to be assassinated and instructions on making bombs. As a remedy, BurstNet shut down the Blogetery website, which offers free space. BurstNet did not have to go as far as it did, because the FBI did not oppose the whole clientele. BurstNet offered another reason. It stated that Blogetery violated the terms of service. Blogetery claims that 73,000 blogsites were canceled, but BurstNet estimates the number as far fewer. Another site, lpbfree.com, also was closed. Opposing the change are the Center for Democracy and Technology and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. They complained that innocent sites suffered unfairly. A Congressional Committee earlier had expressed concern over terrorist use of Internet, but the Committee and many who testified before it would not go so far as to recommend shutting such sites. For example, Brian Jenkins of the RAND Corp., called online terrorist recruiting largely a failure. Why? He explained that only about 15 Americans recruited to terrorism each year. FBI Director Robert Mueller emphasized not how many were recruited so far, but the potential effect on the growth of "home-grown" terrorism (Arutz-7, 7/23/10). I asked the Center for Democracy and Technology whether it thought Burstnet's reaction to a violation of terms of service was warranted. Speaking for the Center, John Morris cast the issues in a different light. Mr. Morris told me that the Center leaves matters of terms of service violations up to the responsible parties and is not issuing criticism but expressing concern. The Center is concerned about the "fragility" of freedom of the press on Internet. Poof! Tens of thousands of writers cut off. Internet freedom of expression hangs on the thread of owner discretion; when discretion frays? Morris explained that section 230 of the pertinent federal statute protects Internet service providers from liability for the content on their sites. If this vital section 230 were repealed, Internet service providers would be inclined to censor their sites to prevent lawsuits against them. Censorship invites abuse (Telephone, 7/23).
ARTIST APOLOGIZES TO SLANDERED RABBIS Yossi Evan-Kama's recent exhibit at the Shenkar College of Engineering and Design, renders a fictional account of a right-wing revolution in Israel, including calls by rabbis to kill Jews who are not religiously observant. Rabbis whom he named objected. He apologized. Mr. Evan-Kama explained that for authenticity, he used a list of rabbis, but altered most of their names. He said it was carelessness and not intent to include actual names; he has nothing against those particular rabbis. The exhibition included scenarios of the political and religious right starting a civil war in which they bombed dozens of people, and a black Star of David inside a white circle on a red background, which some critics noted is similar to Nazi symbolism. The head of Shenkar College is Yuli Tamar, former Education Minister. Danny Dayan, head of the Yesha Council, shuddered at the notion that someone who gives a platform to such hate-filled propaganda, called art, was in charge of educating Israel's children. Rabbi Azriel Ariel of Ateret, among the libeled rabbis, remarked that the exhibit reflects hatred, a form of "mental illness" from an "inner emptiness." (Arutz-7, 7/23/10). The artist apparently found no rabbis who do suggest murdering non-religiously observant Jews. Usually, fiction bear a resemblance to reality.
ISRAELI POLICEMAN SENTENCED FOR SHOOTING ARAB CAR THIEF Introducing the original story, Prof. Steven Plaut cited several other cases of Israeli government prosecution of Israelis who defended themselves from Arab attack. In the current case, Israeli Supreme Court Chief Justice doubled a Haifa court's 'sentence of police officer Shahar Mizrachi, to 30 months in prison with common criminals such as ones he had gotten convicted. The officer's crime was catching a car thief in the act and shooting him to stop it. The police chain of command insists that Mizrachi acted properly. This car thief was an Arab. According to Prof. Plaut, Arab police who have shot Jewish criminals were not prosecuted (Prof. Steven Plaut, 7/22/10). I do not know the circumstances. Maariv editor Ben Bror Yemeni has fleshed out the case. First, officer Mizrachi has some not so benign experience with car thieves. He was badly injured by another car thief, getting away in a stolen car. With that car, the thief struck Mizrachi's partner, putting him into a coma from which he has not emerged. This time, the thief threatened Mizrachi with a screw driver, jumped into the stolen car, and tried to run Mizrachi down. Hence the shooting. Why the prosecution? (Plaut, 7/2/10). Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE ON MIDDLE EAST GROUNDHOG DAY
Posted by Paul Rotenberg, July 23, 2010. |
|
This was written by Melanie Phillips and it appeared July
23, 2010 in the Spectator (UK)
|
|
Khaled abu Toameh asks a question: When was the last time the United Nations Security Council met to condemn an Arab government for its mistreatment of Palestinians? How come groups and individuals on university campuses in the US and Canada that call themselves 'pro-Palestinian' remain silent when Jordan revokes the citizenship of thousands of Palestinians? The plight of Palestinians living in Arab countries in general, and Lebanon in particular, is one that is often ignored by the mainstream media in West. How come they turn a blind eye to the fact that Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and many more Arab countries continue to impose severe travel restrictions on Palestinians? ...A news story on the Palestinians that does not include an anti-Israel angle rarely makes it to the front pages of Western newspapers. The demolition of an Arab-owned illegal building in Jerusalem is, for most of these correspondents, much more important than the fact that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Lebanon continue to suffer from a series of humiliating restrictions. Not only are Palestinians living in Lebanon denied the right to own property, but they also do not qualify for health care, and are banned by law from working in a large number of jobs. Can someone imagine what would be the reaction in the international community if Israel tomorrow passed a law that prohibits its Arab citizens from working as taxi drivers, journalists, physicians, cooks, waiters, engineers and lawyers? Or if the Israeli Ministry of Education issued a directive prohibiting Arab children from enrolling in universities and schools? I think we all know the answer. Meanwhile, if anyone wants to know why the Middle East 'peace process' aiming to bring about a 'two-state solution' never gets anywhere, they will find the answer here in Professor Efraim Karsh's superb and truthful summary of the tragic history of the past century. As he writes, a 'two-state solution' has been agreed over and over again during that time by the Jews, the British, the Europeans and the Americans. The only people who haven't agreed, and have instead repeatedly and without interruption tried to annihilate the Jewish state, are the Arabs. And as Karsh observes, nothing has changed today. It is not just Hamas which refuses to accept the existence of Israel in a 'two state solution', but Fatah, headed by the 'moderate' Mahmoud Abbas. As Karsh writes: In a televised speech on May 15, 2005, Abbas described the establishment of Israel as an unprecedented historic injustice and vowed his unwavering resolve never to accept it. Two-and-a-half years later, at a U.S.-sponsored peace conference in Annapolis, he rejected Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's proposal of a Palestinian Arab state in 97 percent of the West Bank and the entire Gaza Strip, and categorically dismissed the request to recognize Israel as a Jewish state alongside the would-be Palestinian state, insisting instead on full implementation of the "right of return." But instead, it is Israel that has been turned by the west into the pariah state. Go figure. |
|
FIGHTING AN UNNAMED ENEMY WAGING AN UNRECOGNIZED WAR
Posted by Daniel Mandel, July 23, 2010. |
|
Since arriving in office, the Obama administration has delved deeply into its thesaurus to find ways of speaking about Islamism without mentioning it. In his June 2009 Cairo speech, a not atypical example, President Obama referred repeatedly to 'extremists,' 'violent extremists' and 'violent extremism.' He even referred at one point to anti-Israel terrorism by its Palestinian euphemism — 'resistance.' Add to this the philological ingenuities of his officials: 'man-caused disasters' (terrorism) and 'overseas contingency operations' (fighting Islamists in Afghanistan), and the omission of any mention of the terrorism and the ideology animating it is virtually uniform in this administration. However, following last week's terrorist outrages against Ugandans, Obama has referred now to 'terrorists' while also hitting on a new term: 'racist.' As an administration official helpfully explained, al Qaeda does not deploy its black African recruits except in their "lower level operations." Are we then to assume that the administration would be pleased to see a higher proportion of black Africans in al-Qaeda's operational cadre? A cynic might argue that this reaction to the terrorist outrages affords hope that this race-preoccupied administration might be about to take Islamists seriously, if only because of al Qaeda's contempt for inclusiveness and diversity. Unfortunately, any such hope would be frivolous. Consider, for example, the rationale advanced by the Obama administration for banishing the words 'Islamism' and 'jihad' from the governmental lexicon. In May, John O. Brennan, Obama's chief national security adviser for counterterrorism, contended that to use such terms "would lend credence" to the notion "that the United States is somehow at war against Islam ... Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself of one's community." Yet, according to all schools of Islamic jurisprudence, jihad has always constituted a struggle by all means, including waging war, to establish and extend Muslim dominion over non-Muslims. Purification is seen to reside in attaining this objective, not in some conception of personal or communal development that Brennan artlessly drapes over it. The United States is not at war with Islam, but Muslims who wage jihad are at war with the United States. Then consider who else of Brennan's ilk Obama has appointed — or sought to appoint — to senior posts: Rashad Hussain, envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the 57-member inter-governmental group of Muslim majority states: A former Justice Department official and White House deputy counsel, Hussain claimed in a 2007 article that restrictions placed on non-immigrant visitors from countries which have produced Islamist terror threats are "racist." Hussain has also called the prosecution of a Florida professor who was found to have been illegally funding the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad (presumed politically correct name: Palestinian Extremist Man-Made Disaster-Causers) "politically motivated persecution." This impossible to satirize line-up suggests that this administration cannot win — itself an objective consciously discarded in Afghanistan by Obama in favor of 'shoring up security in the country' — over an unnamed enemy waging an unrecognized war. Daniel Mandel (PhD Melbourne, 1999) is a Research Fellow in the
Department of History at Melbourne University and author of H.V. Evatt
and the Establishment of Israel: The Undercover Zionist (Routledge,
London, 2004). He is
director of the Zionist Organization of America's Center for Middle East Policy.
|
|
BEHIND THE MOSQUE
Posted by Bostom, Andrew, July 23, 2010. |
|
Imam Feisal Rauf, the central figure in the coterie planning a huge mosque just off Ground Zero, is a full-throated champion of the very same Muslim theologians and jurists identified in a landmark NYPD report as central to promoting the Islamic religious bigotry that fuels modern jihad terrorism....Wahhabism. Whether in the form promoted by Saudi money around the globe, or in the more openly nihilist brand embraced by terrorists, Wahhabism is a totalitarian ideology comparable to Nazism or, closer still, the "state Shintoism" of imperial Japan. We would never have allowed a Shinto shrine at the site of the Pearl Harbor carnage — especially one to serve as a recruiting station for Tokyo's militarists while World War II was still on. For the same reasons, we must say no to a Wahhabi mosque at Ground Zero This fact alone should compel Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and Mayor Bloomberg to withdraw their support for the proposed mosque. In August 2007, the NYPD released "Radicalization in the West — The Homegrown Threat." This landmark 90-page report looked at the threat that had become apparent since 9/11, analyzing the roots of recent terror plots in the United States, from Lackawanna, NY, to Portland, Ore., to Fort Dix, NJ. The report noted that Saudi "Wahhabi" scholars feed the jihadist ideology, legitimizing an "extreme intolerance" toward non-Muslims, especially Jews, Christians and Hindus. In particular, the analysts noted that the "journey" of radicalization that produces homegrown jihadis often begins in a Wahhabi mosque. The term "Wahhabi" refers to the 18th century founder of this austere Islamic tradition, Muhammad bin Abdul al-Wahhab, who claimed inspiration from 14th century jurist Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah. At least two of Imam Rauf's books, a 2000 treatise on Islamic law and his 2004 "What's Right with Islam," laud the implementation of sharia — including within America — and the "rejuvenating" Islamic religious spirit of Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Wahhab. He also lionizes as two ostensible "modernists" Jamal al-Dinal-Afghani (d. 1897), and his student Muhammad Abduh (d. 1905). In fact, both defended the Wahhabis, praised the salutary influence of Ibn Taymiyyah and promoted the pretense that sharia — despite its permanent advocacy of jihad and dehumanizing injunctions on non-Muslims and women — was somehow compatible with Western concepts of human rights, as in our own Bill of Rights. In short, Feisal Rauf's public image as a devotee of the "contemplative" Sufi school of Islam cannot change the fact that his writings directed at Muslims are full of praise for the most noxious and dangerous Muslim thinkers. Indeed, even the classical Sufi master that Rauf extols, the 12th-century jurist Abu Hamed Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali, issued opinions on jihad and the imposition of Islamic law on the vanquished non-Muslim populations that were as bellicose and bigoted as those of Ibn Taymiyyah. Also relevant is the Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow program run by the American Society for Muslim Advancement, an organization founded by Rauf and now run by his wife. Among the future leaders it has recognized are one of the co-authors of a "denunciation" of the NYPD report, a counter-report endorsed by all major Wahhabi-front organizations in America. Another "future leader" of interest to New Yorkers: Debbie Almontaser, the onetime head of the city's Khalil Gibran Academy. More revealing is the fact that Rauf himself has refused to sign a straightforward pledge to "repudiate the threat from authoritative sharia to the religious freedom and safety of former Muslims," a pledge issued nine months ago by ex-Muslims under threat for their "apostasy." That refusal is a tacit admission that Rauf believes that sharia trumps such fundamental Western principles as freedom of conscience. Wahhabism — whether in the form promoted by Saudi money around the globe, or in the more openly nihilist brand embraced by terrorists — is a totalitarian ideology comparable to Nazism or, closer still, the "state Shintoism" of imperial Japan. We would never have allowed a Shinto shrine at the site of the Pearl Harbor carnage — especially one to serve as a recruiting station for Tokyo's militarists while World War II was still on. For the same reasons, we must say no to a Wahhabi mosque at Ground Zero.
Andrew G. Bostom, M.D., M.S. (Providence, RI), is the author of the highly acclaimed The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims. More on his work can be found at www.andrewbostom.org, including a preview of his eagerly anticipated forthcoming book, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History. |
|
WHEN ARABS TWEET
Posted by Daily Alert, July 23, 2010. |
|
This was written by Rami G. Khouri and it was published at
the New York Times
Rami G. Khouri is editor-at-large of The Daily Star, and director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut. |
|
BEIRUT — I was intrigued to see several recent calls for bids by the U.S. Agency for International Development for programs that would, among other things, train young Arabs how to better use the Internet and other digital technologies for political activism, advocacy, greater transparency and accountability, and other such democratic practices. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has repeatedly stressed Washington's commitment to such programs as part of President Barack Obama's call for greater engagement between the United States and Islamic societies. Two important questions come to mind, which I hope the U.S. government is pondering seriously. The first is about the actual impact on the political culture of young Arabs and Iranians who use the new media. The second is about the most appropriate way for the United States, or any other foreign party, to promote this sector. We are witnessing a continuing social revolution in how youth throughout the Middle East use Web sites, cellphones, chat systems, blogs, Twitter, Facebook and other rapidly evolving new media. Millions of young people communicate with each other digitally, express their views and identities, and sometimes mobilize for causes as disparate as promoting a new movie, arranging a dance party, sharing photos or bemoaning a tired old dictator. In some countries like Iran and Egypt, we are told, tens of thousands of bloggers are at work expressing their independent views and challenging the established order. But what do young people actually do, or aim to achieve, with the new media? Are the new digital and social media a credible tool for challenging established political orders and bringing about political change in our region? My impression is that these new media today play a role identical to that played by Al Jazeera satellite television when it first appeared in the mid-1990s — they provide important new means by which ordinary citizens can both receive information and express their views, regardless of government controls on both, but in terms of their impact they seem more like a stress reliever than a mechanism for political change. Watching Arab pundits criticize Arab governments, Israel or the United States — common fare on Arab satellite television — is great vicarious satisfaction for ordinary men and women who live in political cultures that deny them serious opportunities for free speech. Blogging, reading politically racy Web sites, or passing around provocative text messages by cellphone is equally satisfying for many youth. Such activities, though, essentially shift the individual from the realm of participant to the realm of spectator, and transform what would otherwise be an act of political activism — mobilizing, demonstrating or voting — into an act of passive, harmless personal entertainment. We must face the fact that all the new media and hundreds of thousands of young bloggers from Morocco to Iran have not triggered a single significant or lasting change in Arab or Iranian political culture. Not a single one. Zero. This is partly because the modern Middle Eastern security state is firmly in control of the key levers of power — guns and money, mainly — and has learned to live with the digital open flow of information, as long as this does not translate into actual political action that seeks to change policies or ruling elites. How should interested foreign parties engage in such an environment? The first thing is to rid themselves of some nagging blatant contradictions that largely nullify their credibility, and, in fact, make them look pretty silly. One cannot take seriously the United States or any other Western government that funds political activism by young Arabs while it simultaneously provides funds and guns that help cement the power of the very same Arab governments the young social and political activists target for change. Feeding both the jailer and the prisoner is not a sustainable or sensible policy. I would not be surprised if some wise-guy young Arab soon sends a tweet to Hilary Clinton saying, "you're either with us, or you're with the security state." This is an awkward and untenable position for any foreign government that wants to promote political activism and pluralism in the Middle East. It damages Western government credibility, leads to no significant changes in our political cultures, and often discredits the local activists who become tarred with the charge of being Western lackeys. The antidote is simple, but humbling: lower the contradictions in Western policies towards Middle Eastern governments and activists, and grasp more accurately the fact that young people use the digital media mainly for entertainment and vicarious, escapist self-expression. Like I said, the United States and other Western governments should apply more honesty and intellectual rigor to their assault of our digital world than they did in their military invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. The Daily Alert is sponsored by Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and prepared by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). To subscribe to their free daily alerts, send an email to daily@www.dailyalert.jcpa.org |
|
BAD NEWS RE PEACE PROCESS
Posted by Barry Rubin, July 23, 2010. |
|
If you have any belief that there is going to be Israel-Palestinian peace in the near future or that the Palestinian public has been in any way prepared for a two-state solution by its leadership here's a simple point that proves the contrary. The year is 2010. A child born on the day the Oslo agreement, the basis for a supposed peace, was agreed to by Israel and the PLO would soon be celebrating his 18th birthday and be an adult. The "peace process," however, is still in diapers. Yet according to the latest Palestinian poll, 82 percent of West Bank residents won't give up the demand that any peace agreement must let all Palestinians who were refugees in 1948 or their descendents return to live in what is now Israel. In fact, even if compensated for lost property they still demand repatriation. The Palestinian Authority has done nothing to oppose this position, which makes peace with Israel impossible, on the contrary it has consistently supported the idea. This has always been a peculiar concept. If Palestinians were nationalist they would not go and live in another, non-Palestinian and even non-Arab and non-Muslim country. The point of this demand is, of course, to eliminate Israel's existence over time. The amount of bloodshed that would ensue if this idea was implemented would be catastrophic. And don't get me started on the ridiculousness of trying to make peace with a revolutionary Islamist, genocide-seeking Hamas ruling the Gaza Strip. Remember, though, that the American people — and others in the West — are smarter than much of their elites. The respected Gallup poll last February, at a time when President Obama was evincing anger at Israel, shows that 63 percent of Americans support Israel as compared to only 15 percent backing the Palestinians. This is a record, except for a short period in 1991 when Israel was under Scud attack and the PLO was siding with a country, Iraq, that U.S. forces were fighting. Asked if they were favorable toward Israel generally, 67 percent of Americans said "yes," one of the highest scores of all countries. Will peace some day come to the Middle East? Of the respondents, 67 percent said "doubtful" and 30 percent said "there will come a time." Among Republicans only 25 percent said there would be peace some day while the number was 39 percent, still quite low, among Democrats. So the claims of the media, academics, and government officials have not persuaded people. (And the question underestimated this factor since "there will come a time" could mean in 50 years.) By the way, it is being said that U.S.-Israeli security ties are stronger than ever before now under the Obama Administration. This is a bit misleading since many of the programs cited were agreed to under the preceding president. I would phrase it in this way: they are as strong as they have ever been. Here's a detailed account: Glenn Kessler, "U.S.-Israeli security ties grow amid diplomatic disputes," Washington Post, July 16, 2010. Unfortunately, that's just in the United States though — forgive me for saying this — that's the place that counts most. Professor Richard Landes has a portrait of the UK today, however, that is profoundly disturbing, and I'm told by people there is pretty accurate, about just how bad things have become. Since presumably after reading this you will be quite depressed, for encouragement read a poll of British Jews which shows overwhelming support among them for Israel. Then to follow that up read Robert Fulford's view that all the anti-Israel boycott and disinvestment movements have produced close to zero material effect in practice (though obviously the propaganda value is something else). Another interesting new report is this one showing how at least seven and probably all nine of those killed had previously declared their desire to become martyrs in the operation and at least eight of them were members of the radical Islamist IHH group which had previously sent armed fighters to other countries and functions largely as a support group for Hamas. Thus, these were not innocent humanitarian-oriented bystanders but among those who launched an attack on Israeli soldiers and kidnapped three of them. The U.S. government is now thinking of designated the IHH main group in Turkey as a terrorist group. But there's a problem here: the IHH is very close to the Turkish regime so if the IHH is terrorist than the Turkish Islamist regime is sponsoring a terrorist group, right? Presumably we won't hear more about any classification of the IHH as terrorist no matter how much evidence there is. Watch this one. Khalid Abu Toameh of the Jerusalem Post, whose work is awesome in part because it is so vastly serious to everyone else doing the Palestinian beat, writes: "In recent weeks Hamas leaders are beginning to show signs of optimism. Since the late May incident involving the Turkish flotilla of aid ships, some Americans and Europeans have been campaigning in favor of engaging Hamas. "Al-Qaida, Muslim Brotherhood and jihadists around the world all have their eyes set on the Gaza Strip. They are waiting to see if Hamas manages to win recognition of the international community. "A victory for Hamas is a victory for Islamic fundamentalists not only in Gaza, but in many different places, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan and Iraq.... It does not seem that Hamas has any incentive to change its position amid increasing calls in the West to "break" the isolation of the radical Islamist movement. On the contrary, talk in the West about the need to launch dialogue with Hamas has only served to toughen their stance.... "Not only is Hamas unwilling to accept the three conditions imposed by the Quartet members, but it has now toughened its position on the issue of reconciliation with Fatah...." Among the latest members of the pro-Hamas camp are Muhammad el-Baradei, "reformist" candidate for the presidency of Egypt. He says that if he is elected he will accept Hamas's rule of the Gaza Strip and open the border completely to them. That's quite a reform. Speaking of aggressive Islamism, here's the latest in Gareth Jenkins remarkable and scholarly analysis of how the Turkish Islamist regime uses false conspiracy charges to arrest and intimidate opponents. This story is either not covered at all in the West or the media actually swallows the repressive regime propaganda that it is arresting real conspirators! Jenkins has actually read the charges and finds them ridiculous. I think there's a pattern here: the exact opposite to the one believed in the West. Remember Fatah, the group controlling the Palestinian Authority (PA)? Well it has come out against direct negotiations with Israel. But wait! Isn't President Obama always saying the PA is really moderate and wants peace? Well, I keep saying that Fatah is still controlled by radicals who are far from ready for a peace agreement with Israel. Who are you going to believe? And what happens when the PA, including Mahmoud Abbas himself, openly opposes the direct talks that Obama wants? Does there come a point when the U.S. government realizes that its big problem is the PA and not Israel? Speaking of people throwing a pie in the face of Obama and dissing [American slang for disrespecting] U.S. interests, how about the open Russian declaration that it is going to help Iran get around sanctions? This follows U.S. government hints that since Russia voted for the UN sanctions it won't actually be expected to apply them. Do you know what this means? The sanctions are not so much a hurt-Iran-to-discourage-nuclear weapons plan but a make-lots-of-money-for-Russia-by driving-out-Western-dealings-with-Iran-so Moscow-can-get-the-business. At the same time, despite these shortcomings, the Obama Administration should get credit for the following: keeping strong U.S.-Israel security ties, working hard now on anti-Iran sanctions (though Congress deserves much of the credit), and beginning to lay the groundwork for containing Iran. |
|
NOT LEFTISTS, JUST CRAZY CONTRARIANS
Posted by Paul Lademain, July 23, 2010. |
|
We read somewhere that during the time of Jesus, a Jew who appointed himself a community spokesman, cursed his fellow Jews because they failed to save Jesus from the Roman Centurions and he, the community loudmouth, cursed and damned the members of his religon forever and ever more. This Jew, who did nothing himself to save Jesus, was the first Jewish Contrarian — a Jew who was willing to promote the collective damnation of innocent and unarmed Jews who could not possibly prevail in a battle against the Roman troops. Here was born the first self-loathing Jew who wanted other Jews to loath themselves, too. Some call this sort of Jew a "leftist". We we have a different view because with hindsight one can see that this Contrarian Jew was then, in his time, as cowardly as was the Egyptian born terrorist, Yasser Arafat, in his time. Both men, each of a different millenium, instead of sacrificing themselves, urged others to sacrifice themselves for their ambitious notions. Look at Yasser Arafat, the Egyptian-born fascist muckraker: here was a self- aggrandizing conniver, entirely opposed to strapping on his own bomb belt and blowing himself "to paradise" for the cause he and his Saudi sponsors invented. Today, in Israel, aided and abetted by ignorant sentimentalists, there are clutches of Jews who cling to the notion that their knee-jerk contrarianism is a badge of their intellectual purity. They feel they must trumpet a position contrary to whatever the majority view might be. Should the majority favor democracy, the Jewish Contrarian will wrack his or her brain to oppose a democratic state that gives equal rights to Jews — the Contrarian Jew demands the rights of a democracy, but only for Muslims: Jews should sacrifice themselves for Muslims. Should the majority oppose slavery, the Jewish Contrarian will argue in its favor and predictably, voice no protest against the slavery that fuels the productive engines of adjacent Islamic states. If the majority of Israelis support the state of Israel as a Jewish State, the Jewish Contrarian will do his or her utmost to open the floodgates to invading Islamics with the aim that "Israel should be a state for all people" which raises the entirely false inference that it isn't so now. (It already is — simply because it is an all-inclusive Jewish State.) Should the majority of Israelis seek to enforce their boundaries, the Contriarian will be the first to throw a wrench into the mandates of international law enacted during the Twenties to protect the boundaries set for Israel during the last century. And so it should come as no surprise that the Contriarian Jew will gather stones to be hurled by Islamics at innocent Israeli women and children. Similarly, the Contrarian Jewish Israeli will smugly undermine the legal rights of all other Israeli Jews and reward the foreign invaders occupying the Jewish Homeland, and so forth and so on. It should come as no surprise then, that a mind schooled in Jewish knee-jerk contrarianism would align itself with an opposite view when it comes to the idea of freedom and security for all Jews in the Jewish Homeland. (A Jewish Homeland that has been vastly diminished by the ultra vires acts of the British during their brief period of mandate over the Jewish Homeland.) We therefore do not wonder that there are Jews to be found in Israel who will oppose their own nation for the simple reason that other Jews, Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists support the nation of Israel. The latter do not question Israel's sovereign rights. They do not question its existence — only Jewish Contrarianists do. Some would call them guilty of treason. Or Traitors. Many do. Our opinion comports with such views. We think that the notion that a Jew can with impunity destroy the very nation that protects them is a notion that destroys not only Israel, but also and equally the democratic values that stem from Magna Carta, the French Revolution, the US Constitution and the US Bill of Rights. In short, we have sadly reached a conclusion that the Jewish Contrarian clings to his or her Jewishness only for the sake of having an excuse to hate and to destroy the nation of Israel instead of building Israel into a nation that stands strong against Sharia, fascism, and Islamic imperialism. Viva to the Patriots of Israel from the Secular Christians for Zion. (SC4Z) Have a good day. Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net |
|
JEWS HAVE LEGAL TITLE TO JUDEA AND SAMARIA since 4/24/1920.
WHY DON'T WE ACCEPT AND ENJOY IT?
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, July 23, 2010. |
|
What is troubling is that Jews, and particularly successive governments for the Jewish Nation/State of Israel, accept absurd international laws and rules that impinge upon the sovereignty of Israel and the Jewish people in their ancient homeland from over 3,822 years. More troubling is that most Jews and most governments of Israel do not adequately protest accepting the diktats of hostile nations, hostile religions, hostile institutions like the United Nations and its various adjunctive bodies. Most troubling is that Israel and the many leaders of the Jewish people world-wide accept diktats from leaders of formerly friendly nations which amount to voluntary national suicide. Why doesn't Israel, her sovereign government and world Jewry follow the International Laws described below? Why have Israel and world Jewry denigrated these International Laws that inure to Israel's benefit? |
|
Original Message From: Fishbein Associates, Inc. To: Fishbein Associates, Inc. Subject: JEWS HAVE LEGAL TITLE TO JUDEA AND SAMARIA
Finally we see clearly exposed the right of Israel UNDER
INTERNATIONAL LAW to the Land of the Mandate of Palestine. What is
incomprehensible to me is the inability of the various governments of
Israel to state their case and the rights of Israel to the world. They
should shout it and hammer it continuously at the UN and to all the
hostile governments of the world and of Eurabia in particular.
"The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International
Law" by William Mehlman writes on "The Legal Foundation and Borders of
Israel" by constitutional scholar and lawyer Howard Grief. Read
Mehlman's article here.
|
|
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 23, 2010. |
|
TWO NEW CONVERTS TO ISLAM IN TERRORISM CASES A convert to Islam, Zachary A. Chesser of Fairfax County Virginia, exchanged e-mails with terrorist recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki, himself a convert and now in hiding. Then he posted to the Internet a statement that the producers of "South Park" may be assassinated for portraying Mohammed in a bear suit. Mr. Chesser was arrested the second time he tried to fly to Somalia. That time, He had his infant son with him. The government says he told his wife he was taking the son in order to "provide cover," presumably to seem less suspicious. However, he was on the no-fly list. Another American convert to Islam, who admits being radicalized by Mr. al-Awlaki, is Paul G. Rockwood of King Salmon, Alaska. Mr. Rockwood pleaded guilty to making false statements during an investigation of terrorism. He was sentenced to eight years. Rockwood had prepared a list of 15 people whom he believed should be slain for "desecrating Islam." "Homegrown terrorists" are a growing menace (Scott Shane, NY Times, 7/22, A15). As earlier articles have shown, violent felons were converted to a violent version of Islam, because the prison imams were radical. Chesser and Rockwood were converted outside of prison. Can psychologists fathom why such people new in their faith, are ready to murder non-believers? Is there some way to persuade them to wait for further seasoning, and not be presumptuous? Does a high percentage of converts select a radical ideology? If so why? Could they be persuaded that murder over alleged insult is extreme, and that they should try argument? |
|
DHIMMITUDE: NEVER HEARD OF IT? WELL, IT'S A REAL WORD! SCARY!! YES IT IS REAL!!!
Posted by Cindy D., July 22, 2010. |
|
DHIMMITUDE Dhimmitude: I had never heard the word until now — Type it into Google and start reading. Pretty interesting. It's on page 107 of the healthcare bill. Someone looked this up on Google and yes, it exists! It's a REAL word. Amish are also excluded. I think I could become Amish a whole lot easier than to become a Muslim. Word of the Day: Dhimmitude Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-Muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam. The ObamaCare bill is the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim diktat in the United States. Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be "gambling", "risk-taking" and "usury" and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this. How convenient. So I, Ann Barnhardt, a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of my assets, including real estate, cattle, and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because I refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health needs paid for by the de facto government insurance. Non-Muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize Muslims. Period. This is Dhimmitude. Dhimmitude serves two purposes: it enriches the Muslim masters AND serves to drive conversions to Islam. In this case, the incentive to convert to Islam will be taken up by those in the inner-cities as well as the godless Generation X, Y and Z types who have no moral anchor. If you don't believe in Christ to begin with, it is no problem whatsoever to sell Him for 30 pieces of silver. "Sure, I'll be a Muslim if it means free health insurance and no taxes. Where do I sign, bro?" I recommend sending this post to your contacts. This is desperately important and people need to know about it — quickly. Can this possibly be true?? YES!!
|
|
The Status of Non-Muslim Minorities Under Islamic Rule Dhimmitude: the Islamic system of governing populations conquered by jihad wars, encompassing all of the demographic, ethnic, and religious aspects of the political system. The word "dhimmitude" as a historical concept, was coined by Bat Ye'or in 1983 to describe the legal and social conditions of Jews and Christians subjected to Islamic rule. The word "dhimmitude" comes from dhimmi, an Arabic word meaning "protected". Dhimmi was the name applied by the Arab-Muslim conquerors to indigenous non-Muslim populations who surrendered by a treaty (dhimma) to Muslim domination. Islamic conquests expanded over vast territories in Africa, Europe and Asia, for over a millennium (638-1683). The Muslim empire incorporated numerous varied peoples which had their own religion, culture, language and civilization. For centuries, these indigenous, pre-Islamic peoples constituted the great majority of the population of the Islamic lands. Although these populations differed, they were ruled by the same type of laws, based on the shari'a. This similarity, which includes also regional variations, has created a uniform civilization developed throughout the centuries by all non-Muslim indigenous people, who were vanquished by a jihad-war and governed by shari'a law. It is this civilization which is called dhimmitude. It is characterized by the different strategies developed by each dhimmi group to survive as non-Muslim entity in their Islamized countries. Dhimmitude is not exclusively concerned with Muslim history and civilization. Rather it investigates the history of those non-Muslim peoples conquered and colonized by jihad. Dhimmitude encompasses the relationship of Muslims and non-Muslims at the theological, social, political and economical levels. It also incorporates the relationship between the numerous ethno-religious dhimmi groups and the type of mentality that they have developed out of their particular historical condition which lasted for centuries, even in some Muslim countries, till today. Dhimmitude is an entire integrated system, based on Islamic theology. It cannot be judged from the circumstantial position of any one community, at a given time and in a given place. Dhimmitude must be appraised according to its laws and customs, irrespectively of circumstances and political contingencies. For books by Bat Ye'or, see http://www.dhimmi.org Editor's Note: The language of the bill does not have specific exemptions for Muslims and/or Amish (or so we have been told. Probably fewer people have read the entire final version than have read Einstein's original papers on relativity). It does have exemptions usable by members of religious faiths that do not want to be forced to take out health insurance. Muslims could base their rejection on the Koran's ban of products that involve uncertainty, gambling and the charging of interest. However, unlike the Amish, who reject Social Security because they believe in self-sufficiency, Muslims don't have any problem applying for welfare. |
|
DEMOGRAPHIC BOGEYMAN, YES. DEMOGRAPHIC IMPERATIVE, NO.
Posted by Steve Kramer, July 22, 2010. |
|
There's a bogeyman out there: the impending inundation of Arabs into Israel. "Dateline Jerusalem: A demographic study released Tuesday predicts that in Israel and the Palestinian territories, Arabs will outnumber Jews by the year 2020." (www.encyclopedia.com article from 2002) A similar dire prediction appeared on "60 Minutes" in 2009: "Demographers predict that within ten years Arabs will outnumber Jews in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Without a separate Palestinian state the Israelis would have three options, none of them good. They could try ethnic cleansing, drive the Palestinians out of the West Bank, or they could give the Palestinians the vote. That would be the democratic option but it would mean the end of the Jewish state. Or they could try apartheid — have the minority Israelis rule the majority Palestinians, but apartheid regimes don't have a very long life." Doomsayers have been predicting the demise of the Jews in the Middle East for ages. Benjamin Netanyahu wrote "A Place Among the Nations" before his first term as prime minister. In it, he debunked the demographic bogeyman which is frequently cited as the reason Israel must quickly make peace with the Palestinians. The erroneous prediction goes something like this: the number of Muslims west of the Jordan River is rising rapidly compared to the Jewish population. There will soon be more Muslims than Jews in this region, spelling the downfall of Israel as a Jewish state. Why? Because Israel will be forced to give citizenship to all the Palestinians! So, Israel must "give" the Palestinians a state immediately to prevent this from happening. (This prediction ignores the fact that nearly all Palestinians living in Jerusalem have been offered Israeli citizenship — don't ask why — but have refused it. They have, however, accepted all the benefits of citizenship without the obligations by acquiring Jerusalem residency certificates.) Netanyahu pointed out that this demographic threat has been raised against the Jewish state time and time again, yet it has never materialized. At the time of Israel's independence, Jews were about 86% of the population. More than sixty years later, Jews make up about 80% of Israel's population. In the capital, Jerusalem, there is a similar pattern. Jews have been in the majority since the mid-19th century. Currently, Jews make up about two-thirds of the population and the ratio has remained remarkably constant over the decades. Yoram Ettinger, a well-respected consultant in Israel and an expert on this subject, has cited a list of failed predictions: In March 1898, the world-renowned Jewish historian and demographer Shimon Dubnov submitted to Theodor Herzl a projection aimed at defeating the idea of reconstructing the Jewish Commonwealth in the Land of Israel. According to Dubnov, 'The establishment of a substantial Jewish community in the Land of Israel is a messianic dream ... In 2000, there will be only 500,000 Jews in Palestine.' But in 2000, there were five million Jews west of the Jordan River. During the 1940s, Professor Roberto Bacchi, the founder of the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, flooded David Ben-Gurion's office with projections that Jews would become a minority by 1966. He contended that in 2001 there would be — under the most optimistic scenario — only 2.3 million Jews, constituting a 34% minority, between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. But in 2001, the Jews had a 60% majority. In 1967, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol was advised by Israel's demographic establishment to roll back to the 1949 ceasefire lines (the Green Line), lest there be an Arab majority by 1987. But in 1987, Jews maintained a 60% majority, in spite of an unprecedented rise in the Arab population's growth rate. The change in Arab demographics was triggered by a remarkable decline in infant mortality, an impressive increase in life expectancy, and a substantial reduction in emigration — all enabled by access to the Jewish state's health and employment infrastructures. Prof. Bacchi did not believe that a massive Jewish aliyah (immigration) would take place in the aftermath of the 1948-49 War. One million Jews arrived following that war. During the early 1970s, he projected no substantial aliyah from Eastern Europe and from the USSR, because Western Jews could, but would not migrate; while Eastern Jews wanted to, but could not. Almost 300,000 Jews arrived at that time. During the 1980s, Bacchi's followers in Israeli academia dismissed the possibility of a wave of aliyah from the USSR, even if the Communist gates might be opened. One million Jews relocated from the Soviet Union to the Jewish homeland. [More than 100,000 Ethiopian Jews also immigrated to Israel in the same period.] In defiance of fatalistic projections and irrespective of the absence of demographic policy, in 2009 there was a robust 67% Jewish majority west of the Jordan River, excluding Gaza. According to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, the annual number of Israeli Jewish births has grown by 45% from 1995 (80,400) to 2008 (117,000), while the number of Israeli Arab births has stabilized at 39,000 annually. The sharp decline of fertility rate among Israeli Arabs has been the outcome of their successful integration into Israel's education, employment, commerce, health, banking, cultural, political and sports infrastructures. In 1969, the Arab-Jewish fertility gap was five children per family. In 2008, the gap had shrunk to less than one child per family, as Arab births trended downward and Jewish births trended upward. The Jewish proportion of total Israeli births has increased from 69% in 1995 to 75% in 2008. The secular Jewish sector has been the one mostly responsible for
this development, especially the new immigrants from the former USSR.
They are shifting from a fertility rate of 1 birth per woman to
between 2-3 births. Israel's Jewish overall fertility rate (2.8
births) is the highest in the industrialized world, while the
forecasted decline in the Arab fertility rate has occurred 20 years
faster than projected. (From Ettinger's recent article: "Debacle of
Demographic Fatalism" at The Jewish pessimists and other fatalists, from the Zionist point of view, seem to ignore the fact that Jews are still coming to Israel from throughout the Diaspora. The difference today is that Israel is drawing immigrants for economic reasons as much as it draws them for security reasons. Israel is a magnet for high-tech entrepreneurs, whether it's software, hardware, bio-tech, or the next new development. Israel has the world's highest number of start-up companies per capita in the high-tech field. Despite its small size, Israel has more start-ups in these fields than all other countries except America! Israel has largely escaped the "great recession" which has plagued world economies and was the first developed country to increase its bank interest rate, a positive economic development. Nor should Israel's extremely high fertility rate, far higher than other Western countries, be downplayed. This is a strong, positive factor in Israel's continued success. Compare Israel's profile with its Palestinian neighbors. In the Palestinian Authority, there is currently a very high growth in domestic national product, albeit from a very low base. College graduates are on the rise there and the fertility rate is in a decline — all positive signs for the PA economy. These trends, perhaps, may indicate a growing wish for a peace settlement. For sure, they indicate a slowing in population growth. As for benighted Gaza, its family size has recently declined from 6.9 to 6.3, a dramatic drop. Israelis are surrounded by Middle Eastern Arabs by a ratio of 50:1. Despite that, Israel is growing stronger. The West Bank Arabs, those who want prosperity, emulate the Israelis. The Gazans, suffering under the boot of Hamas, are incapable of improving themselves or of joining with their northern cousins, at least for the foreseeable future. Regardless, Israel can thrive in the Middle East. Yoram Ettinger has often written that the upward trend in Jewish demography has critical national security implications that defie demographic fatalism and its policy derivatives. Well-documented demographic optimism should be accorded due consideration by Israel's leadership and by Israel's friends, but it is ignored. My conclusion: there's no demographic imperative for Israel to beg the Palestinians for "peace". Steve Kramer lives in Alfe Menashe. He has written a weekly opinion column for the Jewish Times of southern New Jersey (www.jewishtimes-sj.com) for the last ten years. He writes, "They're about history, politics, touring, or whatever excites me." He is author of "Encountering Israel — Geography, History, Culture." |
|
A NEW TREND IN COUNTERTERRORISM
Posted by Samara Greenberg, July 22, 2010. |
|
The German government set up a hotline today aimed at helping Islamist extremists looking for a way out of terrorism. The hotline service, dubbed "HATIF" after the Arabic word for telephone, stands for Out of Terrorism and Islamic Fanaticism in German. The HATIF hotline will provide callers with advice, as well as help with changing locations and taking "appropriate measures" if the individual has been threatened. According to the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Germany's domestic intelligence agency, the number of members and supporters of radical Islamist groups in Germany increased by around 5 percent in 2009. Germany now has 29 Islamist organizations with an estimated 36,000 members, the largest of which is the Turkish association Milli Görüs. Moreover, homegrown terrorism is of great concern to the government. Today, exit programs are the new trend in fighting Islamic extremism. Set-up in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Indonesia, Jordan, Singapore, Iraq, Malaysia and Egypt, the programs' success rates fluctuate. Saudi Arabia, for example, with the best-funded program, has seen a 10 percent recidivism rate. Germany's program is undoubtedly different than the others, however. Unlike terrorist rehabilitation centers, which are typically offered to prisoners captured in action, the HATIF hotline seeks to help those interested in giving up terrorism on their own. Nevertheless, the success of any exit program relies on each individual's desire to leave extremism; no one can be forced to give up a terrorist group. Therefore, while such programs may support counterterrorism efforts, they are no substitute for them. Indeed, if Islamic extremism continues to increase in Germany and elsewhere, exit programs should not be the government's sole counterterrorism measure.
This appeared June 19, 2010 in the Jewish Policy Center ZBlog
|
|
OBAMA CONDEMNS AL-QAIDA RACISM AGAINST BLACKS, NOT
JEWS; EGYPT'S JIHAD AGAINST APOSTASTES
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 22, 2010. |
|
OBAMA CONDEMNS AL-QAIDA RACISM AGAINST BLACKS, BUT NOT AGAINST JEWS President Obama condemned al-Qaida for its racist attitude toward black Africans. Elaborating, the White House explained that al-Qaida and the groups it inspires do not value black lives or skills, just uses them as cannon fodder. Al-Qaida also sacrifices innocent blacks. Obama did not condemn al-Qaida for its war on Jews. President Obama ignores Bin Laden's saying, 'the war is between us and the Jews': his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri endorsing 'every operation against Jewish interests'; slain al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi describing Jews as 'the grandchildren of monkeys and pigs'; al-Qaeda's Sulayman Abu-Ghayth seeing the conflict as one 'between us and the Jews who are enemies of Allah' and al-Qaeda speaking of 'bastard Jews.'" (7/19/10 press release by Zionist Organization of America, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member) You will notice that Islamists have racial animosities toward all Jews. Their declared enemy is broader that Israel. Therefore, people who oppose Israel but not all Jews, need to be careful that in opposing Jewish statehood, they do not assist the Islamists to take Israel down, kill all its Jews, and pursue Jews elsewhere, whether those Jews were Zionists or not. It would help if anti-Zionists who claim they are decent people were to condemn Islamist antisemitism. Obama failed that test.
ISRAEL TRAPS HAMAS CELL IN JUDEA-SAMARIA Israeli security forces arrested a year-old Hamas cell in Judea-Samaria. The cell had gotten some training. It assassinated an Israeli policeman, and wounded two others. They planned kidnapping, but were apprehended before doing it. Are they guilty? The produced the weapons used and reenacted the assault. One of them admitted taking his six-year-old daughter to Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem, where an Israeli charity paid for the removal of a tumor from his daughter's eye (IMRA, 7/19/10). Between UNRWA and Israel's welfare system, many Arabs around there have developed a welfare mentality. They take charity for granted and retain pre-existing hostility. Israel imagines that its charity wins goodwill. It does for some; it does not for others. Thousands of foreign Arabs come to Israel for medical treatment every year. Yet it always is Israel that is asked to make "confidence-building" concessions. In any case, no change in Arab hostility toward Israel is discernible. Beneficiaries simply "game the system." Note on modern Zionism: The preamble of the Mandate for Palestine,
adopted by the League of Nations and endorsed by the United Nations
states, "Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical
connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for
reconstituting their national home in that country;"
ISRAEL REVEALS MORE ABOUT HIZBULLAH CEASEFIRE VIOLATIONS Israel's chief of staff revealed more about Hizbullah/s buildup in Lebanon, on a trip to Italy. He told the media that Hizbullah "is building an underground infrastructure of command centers and rocket launchers, mostly within the Shiite villages in southern Lebanon, as well as [in] other parts of Lebanon". Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi accused Hizbullah of exploiting the civilian presence and the UNIFIL non-presence to hide facilities for attacking Israel (IMRA, 7/19/10).
EGYPT'S JIHAD AGAINST APOSTASTES Here is a case of Egypt's jihad against converts to Christianity. Islam authorizes capital punishment for Muslim converts to Christianity. Islamic law is the basic law of Egypt, but Egypt applies punishment differently. Egypt initially harasses, beats, and confines apostates to the house. Apparently Nagla Imam, a prominent female lawyer and human rights activist in Egypt already confronted Islamic abuses while still a Muslim. She campaigned against polygamy. Ms. Imam called in to the weekly Arabic satellite station Tarek TV
show, I Was a Prisoner, whose host, Nabil Bissada, was imprisoned and
tortured in Egypt for helping Muslims convert to Christianity. The
program explores human rights deficiencies in Muslim countries, as
does program guest and source of this article, Raymond Ibrahim of
Pajamas Media.
Imam related having been fired for converting. She was not allowed to change her ID to "Muslim." [Should ID identify one's religion?] She organized other converts to Christianity into a public demonstration against the government over this. Police beat, threatened, and dispersed the demonstrators, and a mob assisted. A girl whose arm was broken was denied medical treatment. The Saudi TV station, Al Arabiya, displayed a video of her suggesting that Jewish women be harassed sexually. Imam denies it, accusing the station of doctoring the film. [Her denial is consistent with her being a feminist and a brave human rights activist who believes in freedom of conscience.] A couple of weeks ago, she was arrested. The official in charge beat her badly and told her to stay in her house. He threatened to send people to assassinate her, if she did not return to Islam. Her Muslim relatives abandoned her and her two children. Neighbors bang on her house and cut off her electricity. Al Azhar University declared her a heretic who must not leave her house. She has disappeared, whether voluntarily or involuntarily is not known (IMRA, 7/19/10). Compare the angry accusations that Israel is a theocracy, though it
is a mixture, with the harsh reality of Egypt. Will anger be spared
for those who beat and murder apostates?
RAIDING IRANIAN NUCLEAR FACILITIES — STRATEGIC CONSIDERATION Ron Tira, author of The Nature of War: Conflicting Paradigms and Israeli Military Effectiveness (2009), is a reservist in the Israeli Air Force's Campaign Planning Department. He wrote "Strategic Assessment", Vol. 13, No. 1, July 2010. The Assessment is well organized, detailed, and thoughtful. Here are just a few of its points. A persuasive argument for the U.S. to approve an Israeli raid is that a successful raid would make feasible a U.S. withdrawal from its current wars without concern that Iran would fill the vacuum. After an Israeli raid, the U.S. may drop its objections and seek the possible gains. Rather than immediately develop nuclear weapons, Iran develops different infrastructure approaches to them and duplicates its abilities. This policy discourages a raid as futile and staves off a siege until the last minute. Iran conducts itself to draw the world past red lines and to gain time. Iran takes turns being defiant and conciliatory, until the West does not know what Iran's intentions are. The U.S. failure to adhere to the deadlines it gave Iran emboldens Iran to disregard other deadlines (Arutz-7, 7/19/10). To make U.S. withdrawal feasible, Iran may have to be damaged much more than in its nuclear facilities. Deferring the actual manufacture of weapons in order to enable multiple means of making them deceives people into denying that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. The human mind has two specialties: (1) Deceiving other people; (2) Deceiving oneself.
IRAN VERSUS INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY ASSOCIATION The International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) acknowledges that a member has the right to bar individual inspectors whom it considers to have treated it unfairly. Iran is passing a bill that would, it claims, treat the IAEA with the same cooperation that IAEA shows Iran. Iran accused the IAEA of treating it on political grounds. It accused two inspectors of fabricating data and leaking it. When Britain, France, and Canada voted for sanctions against Iran,
Iran barred 38 inspectors, mostly citizens of those countries, from
returning to Iran (IMRA, 7/18/10).
Bar enough inspectors, and the treaty becomes unenforceable, if it ever were enforceable. That is carrying the terms of the treaty far enough to defeat the purpose of the treaty. Did the drafters of the treaty take into consideration that some members would violate and sabotage the treaty, and routinely would call all criticism lies. Jihadists deal with criticism by calling it lies or insults. The news brief states what the parties said but not what the facts are. Did certain inspectors leak reports? If so, why? What was the reason for barring inspectors from certain countries? Citizens of those democracies generally are free to follow professional guidelines rather than national policy. By contrast, citizens of dictatorships such as Iran, are not free about that. Some Mideast societies assume that foreigners represent their ethnic groups, because people in the Mideast often do. False assumption. Prejudiced.
WILL BRITAIN REFORM ITS LIBEL LAW AND ENABLES JIHADI LAWFARE? The government of Britain again is making an effort to reform its libel law, used as a tool of jihad. What is the problem with Britain's law? (1) Defendants are presumed guilty. The law puts the burden on someone accused of defamation to prove his innocence; (2) The grounds for suit presumably is the "public interest," but the standards for that are loose; (3) Too broad a jurisdiction, enabling people to sue foreigners in Britain; (4) Defendants need not publish in Britain, so long as a copy is available to British Internet users; and (5) Encourages frivolous cases and bullying cases, because anyone may sue without having to put up legal fees, but the loser in this stacked judicial setup has to pay the legal fees for both sides plus punitive damages. In Britain, defense against libel suits costs 2.4 times as much as in the rest of Europe. The notorious example of abuse of the law was by a wealthy Saudi, Sheikh Mahfouz, who has business interests in Britain, sued authors who lacked the funds to defend themselves. He got them to withdraw publications. They lost their freedom of the press. Although reform is popular, the powerful trial lawyers may be able to defeat it, again. They would argue that the "no win, no fee" arrangement enables poor people to sue. Yes, but it encourages frivolous cases and makes it more difficult for poor people to defend (Jeffrey Azarva, 7/16/10 2:48 p.m. from MEFNews, 7/18).
LEGAL BASIS OF ISRAELI BLOCKADE OF GAZA: MORE We covered before the legal basis of Israel's naval blockade of Gaza, but Ruth Lapidoth, Professor Emeritus of International Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has more on it. The rules of naval warfare have not been codified in a treaty. The rules are in the form of binding custom, according to international law. The U.S. and British manuals explain them, as does the San Remo Manual prepared by experts. Formal declarations of war no longer are necessary. But the rules of armed conflict apply. Those rules allow Israel to control shipping headed for Gaza, even while still on the high seas and regardless of cargo. Israel may not enter another state's territorial waters to enforce the blockade or block another country from access to the sea. What makes a blockade legal? It must be declared for a specific area, announced, non-discriminatory, and permit humanitarian aid for civilians. Any ship stopped must individually be notified of the embargo [and given an opportunity to turn back without penalty]. Blockades may not just be declared, they must be enforced, to be legal. With rare exceptions, the blockade must apply to all, equally. The 1994 San Remo Manual states that when and through which port the humanitarian aid enters is up to the blockader. The blockader may authorize a neutral party to supervise the distribution of the aid so that it does not go to combatants. Suppose a ship attempts to run the blockade. Merchant ships may be visited, searched, captured, and if resistant, attacked. The rules for neutral warships are not clear. In general, warships may be searched and captured, but it is not clear whether they may be attacked except in self-defense. Although Gaza is not part of a state, the conflict is an international one. Some people suggest that Israel is an occupier of Gaza, but the Hague convention of 1907 defines occupation as controlling the whole area. Israel controls just the sea and air space of Gaza, not the land mass nor governance of the population (IMRA, 7/18/10). What state's territory would Israel be occupying — Gaza is not part of a state. One cannot be an occupier of an area not part of a state. Gaza is the unallocated part of the Mandate, to which Israel is chief heir. The Oslo Accords recognize Israel's overall security control of the Territorites.
THRID TEMPLE BUILDING POPULAR AMONG ISRAELIS, ANATHEMA TO MUSLIMS A poll finds that about half the Israelis would like the ancient Temple rebuilt on top of the Temple Mount, and a fourth of them would not like it. By about the same percentages, however, the do not want the government involved and do not expect it to be rebuilt. Muslim reaction can be imagined, considering that they have gotten the government of a supposedly Jewish state to hand over day-to-day control over the Mount and forbids Jews from praying on the Mount (Arutz-7, 7/19/10). For the benefit of certain readers who over-simply Israel's status as a theocracy, this is exhibit A for the case that Israel is not. On the other hand, Islam has become the established religion in every Muslim-majority state except, for now, Turkey. Do anti-theocracy people have any indignation, that arouses them against Israel, to spare for the dozens of Muslim states which, unlike Israel, put other religions at a disadvantage? The poll shows that I under-estimated sentiment in favor of a Third Temple, but not the likelihood of attaining it. That likelihood is lessened by a Supreme Court that keeps carving power off religious courts. It would further diminish if foreign relations were taken into account. The likelihood would increase if Israel resumed control over the Temple Mount, stopped illegal Muslim building and destruction of ancient Jewish artifacts, and allowed Jewish prayer on the Mount. The likelihood also would increase if Israel ended the mistaken but politically correct notion that the Mount is equally holy to three faiths. Muslims paid it little attention when they controlled it, but raise religious concerns when they do not control it. That puts religion at the service of politics. Certain principles of Jewish law are eternal, but certain customs get reformed. Personally, I would not like to see a resumption of animal sacrifice, the practice at the former Temples.
OBAMA SWITCH ON ISRAEL SHOWS REAL COST OF ELECTIONS Now Obama is not defaming Israel as an insulter of the U.S. but is praising it as worth "eternal bonds" with the U.S. Now he boasts of increasing aid to, and "security cooperation" with, Israel. He is proposing a couple of hundred million additional dollars, to help Israel expedite its inferior Iron Dome anti-missile system. Iron Dome can handle only short-range missiles, and only provide the range is very short. The news brief states that the subsidy has strings attached, but just mentions a hope that Israel can make peace (Arutz-7, 7/19/10). A less expensive, earlier available, and pretty much all-purpose system was passed up, because it was inferior, too, but only in lobbying. If you U.S. politicians spend too much on election advertising and public relations, think of how much they spend of our taxes to make up for gaffes and to appease the electorate. Presidents cram a lot of spending in during the election season, to make the economy rise until after the election, when such funds are depleted. Obama acts as if he suddenly has fallen in love with Israel. But his basic policies have not changed. His boost to security cooperation apparently has not changed his red light for an Israeli elimination of Iran's nuclear weapons facilities. The U.S. still gives billions to Israel's jihadists and other enemies. Some people will pretend that Obama is not trying to heal the damage his policies and actions against allies have caused his reputation. They will see the increased spending as evidence of Jewry's power. Actually, the tens of millions of Evangelists and the millions of other Americans who favor Israel are a greater factor. AIPAC is unable or unwilling to get the U.S. to stop arming the common jihadists enemies of the U.S. and Israel.
P.A. REJECTS ISRAELI'S PLAN TO ABANDON GAZA Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman proposed that Israel sever all supply connection with Gaza. He would let foreign governments accelerate economic development in it. The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) rejects the proposal. It objects on the grounds that it contravenes unnamed signed agreements and unnamed international legitimacy. It objects on the grounds that it would divide the P.A.. It objects on the grounds that it would mean abandoning Jerusalem. Finally, the P.A. asserts that this plan would satisfy in Israel just the "extremist right wing," whatever that is (IMRA, 7/18/10). Why would a leftist proposal to completely abandon Gaza satisfy the right wing? What has Jerusalem to do with it? Why would it divide the P.A.? And what is wrong with that, considering that the Arabs already are divided into more than 20 states? When Israel stopped some transshipments of goods into Gaza, the P.A. complained that Israel is an occupying power responsible to maintain the people of Gaza. The P.A. wanted to have its cake and eat it, too — make war on Israel and have Israel supply the electricity and other goods needed for the war. Although Israel abandoned Gaza, the P.A. still calls Gaza occupied. But the P.A also demands that Israel end the "occupation." Lieberman's proposal would seem to do that, but now the P.A. denounces doing that. The P.A. would have us believe that international law now requires Israel to "occupy" Gaza. What a morass of self-contradiction! The lesson here is that the Arab side will take up any argument that supports its case, however self-contradictory the argument and however poor the case. All the P.A. objections are in the interest of Fatah's maintaining power and maintaining a club for getting more territory. To hell with the welfare of the Palestinian Arabs in Gaza, the P.A. indicates, if it means that Fatah does not control them. For all the talk of right-wing governments and Israel being Zionist, the government rarely asserts its claim to the Territories. That talk is a case of foreign anti-Zionists trying to have their cake and eating it too. Here, the government acts leftist and appeasement minded, but the foreign anti-Zionists still denounce the government as far rightist and awfully Zionist. Israeli officials may be foolish and naïve. It is foolish to think that economic development of Gaza would reduce Hamas strength instead of bolstering it. The attempted Israeli government decency never gets recognized by Israel's enemies. Antisemites just want to smear Jews' reputations. Jihadists do not relent, they fight to the death.
P.A. COVERS UP ATTEMPTED RAPE Omar Aladdin, a Palestinian Arab from the village of Umm Salamuna, is an activist against the security barrier there. He previously served time in an Israeli prison. Mr. Alladin was arrested again, three months ago in Bethlehem, on suspicion of attempting to rape an American Muslim fellow-protestor. He was released after having agreed to apologize to the woman. Before his arrest, he said there was nothing to apologize for. The victim had managed to escape. A villager who saw her said she seemed in a state of shock. Fellow protesters and the Palestinian Authority have pressed the woman not to publicly state her story, for the good of the cause. Consequently, she retracted her complaint. Haaretz has learned that activists know of other such attacks by other Palestinian Arabs against foreign activists. This subject apparently comes up in "various popular committees." (IMRA, 7/18/10) Who corrupts whom?
THOMAS FRIEDMAN CONDEMNS FIRING OF CNN EDITOR FOR EULOGY FOR TERRORIST Thomas Friedman condemns the CCN firing of an editor favoring Lebanon terrorist, Fadlallah. His reasons: 1. The last resort of firing has become the first reaction. People should not immediately be dismissed for minor political incorrectness. 2. We need people from the Mideast to interpret events there for us. 3. The editor was right, Fadlallah can legitimately be mourned for having championed women's rights in Lebanon (NY Times, 7/17/10, Op.-Ed). Mr. Friedman is such an important journalist, that his comments constitute news. I agree with his first argument, but find it does not apply. The editor was fired not for minor political incorrectness, but for supporting a major terrorist mentor, one who is complicit in the Hizbullah murder of dozens of U.S. peacekeepers in Lebanon. His second argument sounds reasonable on the face of it, but falls flat when one thinks of that editor, an apologist for terrorism. Think of the late Prof. Edward Said, prejudiced like Friedman, claiming that Western scholars are ipso facto biased. He drove most Mideast specialists out of their field. Into that field came many Middle Easterners who promote jihad. They have created a problem of subversion that if we had a normal atmosphere free of political correctness, we might address. Think of the US, needing translators but suspicious of Arabic-speaking Israelis. The US hired Arabs some of whom informed terrorists what documents the U.S. possesses and who mis advised the U.S. of the contents. The third argument places Muslim women's rights above American national security. If Arab women gain equal status with their men before their men drop bigotry and jihad, the women would strengthen jihad against America. The editor could have issued a balanced statement that Fadlallah was a terrorist enemy of the West responsible for many murders, but his attempt to reform wife-beating were constructive. Can't consider him a humanitarian, when his concern for how women are treated is matched with his assumption that Americans and Israelis lack human rights and should be killed.
ATTACK WEDDING IN GAZA In the southern Gaza Strip, eight masked men attacked a wedding on a family's 2.5acre plot. The assailants dispersed the crowd by setting off two percussion grenades and firing into the air. They beat those who remained with the clubs. Police came right away. "The police attempted to disperse the family members using clubs and gun butts, and the family members threw stones at them in return. The police arrested sixteen persons, including the bridegroom's father and two of his brothers. They were released on" 7/17/10. Later they claimed to have arrested four of the assailants, minors who are known to be radical [you know, "children" like the ones a reader claimed Israel arrests in Judea-Samaria]. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights deplores the improper use of guns and "security chaos" in Gaza (IMRA, 7/18/10). No speculation was made about the motive. A family with 2 1'2 acres
probably is prominent. Does it have political enemies or financial
rivals? Did it serve alcohol? Why belabor it with clubs? Why did
police initially arrest family members? Why did police try to
disperse family members on their own land? Was the attack ordered by
Hamas, or was it really due to "security chaos?" If due to chaos, why
doesn't Hamas, which is very strict and has overwhelming force there,
end the chaos?
MEDIA FAKES GAZA HUMANITARIAN CRISIS, AND TURKEY Photo-journalist Tom Gross proves that the media is faking a Gaza humanitarian crisis. Mr. Gross believes that the Palestinian Arabs of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza should have a separate state. [Why not let them go to Jordan, where Palestinian Arabs already have a state?] Gross wants journalism to be fair about these issues. The Media is not fair when it focuses on the sordid parts of Gaza, and ignores the prosperous parts of Gaza. Reporters could just as easily pretend there is a humanitarian crisis in Israel, by focusing on poorer areas. It is misleading. The media ignores the new mall in Gaza on opening day and a new Olympic-size municipal swimming pool that most Israeli towns do not have, in order to claim that Gaza lacks building materials and water. To relieve the non-existent humanitarian crisis, the EU pledged two days earlier tens of millions of euros more for Gaza, in addition to prior hundreds of millions. Hamas converts much of the subsidy into arms. That, too, the media and EU ignore. They continue to give Gaza 1000 times as much aid per capita as most of Africa, in some of whose countries life-expectancy is 30 years less than Gazans'. The media has been emphasizing supposedly humanitarian flotillas to Gaza. [They really are embargo-breaking attempts made so Hamas can ship in heavy arms for war]. One flotilla was from Turkey. Turkey has a powerful and growing economy, but compare it with Gaza: Life expectancy: Turkey, 72.23 years, Gaza, 73.68 years. Infant mortality: Turkey, 24.84, Gaza, 17.71 per 1,000 births. Literacy: Turkey, 88.7%, Gaza, 91.9%. (It is much lower in Egypt and other Arab countries, where Israel did not establish colleges and universities in the 1970s and 1980s.) GDP: Gaza's is higher than most of Africa. (Source for the comparisons and for aid to Africa: CIA World Factbook.) [I thank a reader for pointing out that originally I had understated Turkey's GDP. The CIA World Factbook that my source used actually had a figure 10 times what the source said it did. Wikipedia has a similar estimate to the CIA's.] In an earlier story, also summarized from Tom Gross, we reported that Gaza has luxury restaurants and fully patronized food markets, while the media claims people are starving. His photo of the 12-page Roots restaurants, popular for Gaza weddings, and of the toy store hardly resemble the "World War II-era concentration camp" that some Western journalists [and one of my readers] have claimed Gaza resembles." (IMRA, 7/18/10). The false comparison is part of the pretense that Israelis are like the Nazis. Unfortunately, audiences get taken in.
FATAH TEACHES ARAB CHILDREN THEY ARE FUTURE COMBATANTS Fatah broadcast the other day an interview with a Palestinian Arab child's understanding, from the Fatah Movement's Sixth General Conference, that he is a future combatant (IMRA, 7/18/10), presumably against Israel. The interview should be thought of in conjunction with Fatah refusal to recognize Jewish sovereignty over Israel. Therefore, Fatah wants war. By contrast, Israeli society teaches its children to hope for peace. The Arab boy's concept leads to an interesting question. Jihadists believe in terrorist, but pretend their attacks on Israeli civilians are justified on the grounds that all Israelis were, are, or will be soldiers. Not all Israelis serve in the military. An elderly Israeli is a civilian. But suppose for the sake of argument we accept the jihadist excuse. Now, those same jihadists make much of Israeli self-defense that targets Hamas troops but strikes some civilians whom the troops use as shields. Are those Arabs really civilians. Think of the children among them, called future soldiers. If Israeli children may be targeted as future soldiers, why not Arab children? I think the Geneva Convention has it right, that civilians may not be targeted. But the jihadists do not agree. They think like war criminals.
ABBAS ADDS ANOTHER PRE-CONDITION FOR NEGOTIATION During his discussion with U.S. envoy Mitchell, P.A. head Abbas raised another pre-condition for direct negotiations with Israel. Abbas demanded that foreign troops be permitted in. To justify this demand, he pointed out that former PM Olmert had offered it. However, Olmert did not get that mere negotiating point ratified. Therefore, contrary to Abbas' rationale, Netanyahu is not bound by it. In discussing a foreign troop presence recently, Israeli Foreign Min. Lieberman said that any such force would have to be a powerful combat unit, like the French Foreign Legion. In other words, it should not be like the EU border inspectors who fled when Hizbullah threatened them and whose absence permitted the arms smuggling and subsequent war in Gaza. The P.A. also wants to place its police stations all over Judea-Samaria, including near Jewish communities. The IDF seems amenable, as based on its recent [and undeserved] compliments to the P.A. forces on security. Those forces are being trained by the U.S. military and being given 50 armored personnel carriers, although Oslo forbids them from becoming an army (Arutz-7, 7/18/10). and PM Netanyahu says that the P.A. must be demilitarized. Abbas' form of jihad could be defined as relentless pressure by any and all means for taking over a non-Muslim society. These means may not be ethical, but they work. Note the unending demands, like a boa constrictor's continuous swallowing of more and more of its prey. This tactic must be frustrating to Western negotiators who do not understand it and the jihadist rejection of peace in the first place. Judging by UNIFIL, foreign troops would be placed to let terrorists through but block Israeli pursuit. For Lieberman to consider this demand is another of his many leftist points of appeasement, concealed by strident rightist language. Foreign troops would significantly degrade national security and endanger Israeli retention of the communities it built in that part of its own homeland. It is dishonest of the IDF to praise P.A. security forces, while the P.A. fosters terrorism, which its security forces do not prevent. The IDF is too political to be trusted on these matters. IDF political and ideological naivete got a number of Israeli troops shot by the Arabs with whom they went on joint patrols. Imagine how foolish are hold joint patrols! In his first term, against pleas for common sense, PM Netanyahu authorized rifles for P.A. troops, who, when the P.A. started an Intifada, shot Israelis with them. To permit near Jewish communities the troops of the P.A., which honors terrorists, threatens war, and whose broadcasts urge murder of Jews, is to pave the way to murder. Those murders likely would conjure calls for removing the Jews "for their own safety," an outcome that the U.S. and the Israeli left want. History records that the British appointed a terrorist Grand Mufti, removed police protection from Jews, and then after an Arab massacre of dozens of Jews in Hebron, removed the rest of the Jews of Hebron for their own protection. The murdering Arab populace was not removed. The complicit British authorities were not removed. ...and that's the rest of the story.
ABBAS TURNS OBAMA DOWN President Obama demanded that P.A. head Abbas turn to direct negotiations, but Abbas turned away from them. He demanded as the price for direct negotiations with Israel that Israel agree to 100% withdrawal including from annexed parts of its capital and that any concession that previous Israeli negotiators had offered in the context of their negotiations and their election be treated as permanent. Abbas had recently met with U.S. envoy Mitchell. Mitchell called their meeting "constructive" and "fruitful," and began to achieve President Obama's vision for comprehensive peace" (Arutz-7, 7/18/10). Direct negotiations permit less intrusion by interested third parties, more understanding, and less disavowal later. The Arabs want the State Dept. urging Israel make one-sided concessions to narrow the negotiations gap that the Arabs widen. Abbas also demanded that Israel freeze Jewish construction in the Territories and in eastern Jerusalem permanently. His one-sided, apartheid-like demands amount to Israeli surrender on major issues that are supposed to be negotiated, leaving Israel without negotiating cards. To put that in context, remember that Abbas' broadcasters preach the duty of killing Jews, Abbas refuses to ever recognize a Jewish state, continues to demand that Israel be filled with Arabs sure to take it over with who knows what harm to the Jews, and his mentor Arafat preached the doctrine of using whatever territory Israel relinquishes as a base for conquering the rest. Some Israelis ask why should they pay to negotiate with aggressors whom they defeated. That sentiment would be more enforceable if Israel exercised its right to annex more territory whose legal status remains as unallocated parts of the Mandate to which Israel is chief heir and which Israel gained in self-defense and needs for secure borders against anticipated future Arab aggression.
STUDY SHOWS ISRAELI HIGH COURT BIASED ON ARAB-ISRAEL LAND CASES The Regavim Movement
The analysts sought to be objective, by not comparing procedural treatment independent of the merits. Here is what they found: Percentage of petitions where a temporary injunction was issued
Percentage of petitions where a conditional court order was issued
Percentage of petitions where the president [of the Supreme Court, Dorit Beinisch] seated herself at the head of the judicial panel
Average number of days provided to the Government to respond
Average days before first hearing
Average number of hearings per petition
An example of the Supreme Court attitude: "In the course of a session regarding Supreme Court case Rahelim (Supreme Court Case 2295/09) on April 26th, the attorney representing the respondents, the residents of the Israeli settlements and the Shomron Regional Council, expressed his surprise aloud in the presence of the president of the Supreme Court and stated that he is unable to explain to his clients why the petitions regarding illegal Palestinian construction are rejected by reason of the state's scale of priorities, but in the case of Jewish construction the petitions are considered binding and valid." "The president's response was: 'I believe that the gentleman understands why..." The Court's bias is obvious. Its danger to Israeli democracy is clear. The public's loss of confidence in their judiciary, based on unequal enforcement of the law, is understandable. Why unequal? The Court considers Judea and Samaria as "occupied territory" and the government as an "occupying power." The Court does not have the Zionist vision of "a nation returning to its land...after two thousand years of exile and redeeming it from its desolation." The Court considers the Arabs in Judea-Samaria an "occupied and oppressed people" rather than "an enemy that desires to destroy us and expel us from our ancestral home." These are ideological issues properly taken up within the political process, not the judicial process. The Supreme Court is wrong to usurp the political decision-making and in order to consistently rule in favor of one side (IMRA, 7/17/10). In evaluating whether Israel's Supreme Court is democratic, it helps to put the Court into perspective. Israel lacks a Bill of Rights and a Constitution with separation of powers between judiciary, legislature, and executive branches. The Court imposes its own, leftist preferences on other issues, too, regardless of law and facts, and making up theories to justify what amounts to legislation. The judges are selected by a closed process within the already leftist judicial circle. The prosecutors mostly are leftist. The police, often brutal against Jews, act under political orders and in fear of Arab riots and that enforcing the law against Arabs would get them persecuted by the government. Police have special orders to harass settlers and seldom protect them from Arab rustlers and land-thieves. The Army, another agency of law enforcement, is run by leftist generals who often seek to become political leaders. The Defense Minister, notorious for withdrawal appeasement, rules against questionably illegal Jewish construction and not against definitely illegal Arab construction. The government denies right-wingers broadcasting licenses for national news. Until recently, most of the print journalism was leftist. The government subsidizes the film industry, which largely is leftist. University social studies departments are controlled by leftists, who use their power to indoctrinate. Prime Ministers elected for promising security tend to compromise security at the behest of the U.S..
EX-UN HEAD NUCLEAR INSPECTOR SAYS IAEA UNWORKABLE David Kay, former UN chief inspector of the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), contrasts expectations with results on Iraq and Iran. As sanctions on Iran rise, so does Iranian rhetoric. Sanctions aim to force Iran to submit to inspections. However, Mr. Kay finds inspection largely ineffective. Inspection cannot prevent a country from developing nuclear weapons, especially if the country is big, determined, and capable, like Iran. Inspectors would need access to all resources with which Iran could develop nuclear weapons and delivery methods. Iran would have to fully declare its nuclear components, uranium enrichment, plutonium activities, and missile testing, production, and deployment. Iran does not cooperate, it obstructs. Iran hides its nuclear activities and foreign and domestic support networks. It denies IAEA interviews with technical staff. It will not disclose what it did with N. Korea and Pakistan, which spread nuclear technology. Iran now has learned how to handle every aspect of nuclear weapons development, including IAEA inspection. IAEA lacks sufficient staff. Most of the countries from which such a staff could be drawn either would not be trusted by Iran or could not be trusted by IAEA. The staff does not get backed up by UN officials. For example, in the 1980s, inspectors were suspicious of Iraq's nuclear program, but their leaders ignored them. After the 1991 Gulf War, the IAEA leaders initially rejected inspection reports of massive Iraqi violations. Then IAEA leaders called Iran in compliance with the treaty. When the 20 years of Iranian secrecy were revealed, the UN withheld authority to confront the government. The violators feel immune, and inspectors feel useless (Wall St. J., 7/17/10, A11). Mr. Kay describes the real world. In the real world, things do not work as the UN Charter states, countries are not truthful, and rogues plan violations. It does not take a court case to prove what already is known and must be acted on. The stakes are too high for decent countries to be naïve about this.
UNIFIl CAPITULATES ON HIZBULLAH In the past few weeks, south Lebanese villagers barred UNIFIL peacekeepers from inspecting for Hizbullah military buildup, threw stones at UN troops, and wrested weapons from some. In an exceptionally polite reaction, UNIFIL commander Maj. Gen. Alberto Asarta Cuevas broadcast to the Lebanese that he loves their country, seeks to ensure their safety, and may have made mistakes, but meant well. Villagers claim they had reacted only to the French regiment for using "sniffer dogs," breaking into houses, and searching contemptuously. A Hizbullah member of Parliament complained that the French conducted an exercise involving a response to a Hizbullah attack on Israel. Why imagine that Hizbullah may be the aggressor, he asked? [Not kidding; he did.] A Lebanese newspaper editor accused UNIFIL of provoking the villagers, so as to create a scandal causing UNIFIL to be disbanded and the French troops to go home. This would embarrass Hizbullah and [by ending the truce agreement] give Israel an excuse to attack. Lebanese officials accuse UNIFIL of not always cooperating and of patrolling villages without them. UNIFIL explains that its 12,000 troops conduct 350 patrols a day, and that the Lebanese troops in southern Lebanon are too spread out to be available. The Lebanese Army responds that its 6,000 troops in southern Lebanon suffice to accompany UNIFIL troops, if asked. [They take their time to arrive, giving Hizbullah time to cover evidence.] UNIFIL commanders, ambassadors from UNIFIL national contingents, and the head of the Lebanese Army spent a week negotiating. They agreed: (1) All UNIFIL patrols would be in cooperation with the Lebanese Army; (2) No more dogs on patrol; (3) Only Lebanese soldiers would search houses; and (3) UNIFIL would avoid entering houses and yards. The arrangement turns UNIFIL into a reporting team unable to enforce the truce. The article ends with derision of Israeli military intelligence, which claims impressive and detailed knowledge of targets in the villages. Israeli intelligence lacked critical knowledge about the flotilla, does not know whether Syrian President Assad wants peace, did not foresee the results of Lebanon's election, was surprised by PM Hariri's submission to Syria, and had an inadequate list of targets for the war with Hizbullah. The journalist points out that the IDF has not provided public proof of its accusation that Syria furnished Scud missiles to Hizbullah (IMRA, 7/17/10). Let us first dispose of the assessment of Israeli intelligence. The journalist, Zvi Bar-El of Haaretz, lumped in military and non-military intelligence. His points are valid, although in the case of Scuds, the IDF may feel that showing the proof is tantamount to disclosing its means and sources of intelligence. These criticisms of Israeli intelligence merit special discussion among Israelis, but are irrelevant to the UNIFIL problem. The UNIFIL problem is a typical Middle East and UN mess. Truth is elusive. (1) Arabs commit aggression, but the prejudiced world does not care. (2) Israel failed to pursue the war far enough to accomplish anything lasting, but went far enough to get into trouble. [Same in Gaza, later.] (3) The UN sets up a ceasefire that enables the aggressor build-up. (4) UN peacekeepers are too few, too dependent upon national contingents, too poorly armed, and too biased to be effective. (5) The UN and the leftist Israeli press fail or refuse to understand that Hizbullah is officially part of the government and unofficially dominates it and the Lebanese Army. The UN never should have given the Lebanese Army a role in curbing its Hizbullah allies. (6) It is all right to report what the various parties assert, but readers deserve clues about the parties' prejudices and ways. Jihadists are aggressors and deceivers. Accepting blame is difficult, but Arab culture has particular difficulty accepting blame. Arab culture and that of neighboring Muslim states accuse without basis and along conspiracy lines, a reaction that is spreading into Western culture. Journalists should question the accusations. Arabs do find the use of dogs offensive. (7) Investigation is needed, but who can be entrusted with it? UN investigations reflect their components' national and ideological biases. We have reported that mortal flaw in the Goldstone investigation. Lebanon is a party to the controversy. Israeli governments have their appeasers and military blind spots. Besides, who in the world trusts any other group, unless it is prejudiced in the same way? Who could get in, to investigate, without having to fight their way in? There are IDF photographs of Hizbullah installations. To me, they are fuzzy. If the IDF can make them clear to other intelligence agencies, that would be a start in determining the situation in those villages. As earlier reports show, Hizbullah bought up southern Lebanese villages and moved in Shiites whom it could trust. We know that Hizbullah has smuggled in arms, contrary to the truce. Hizbullah does use human shields. Therefore, while a court might not be able to gather sufficient proof for a verdict, we can. It is fair to conclude that Hizbullah has thoroughly violated the UN ceasefire. Israel would have a right to act on that, not that I am suggesting that it does or how it should. We end, here, with a further flaw in Mideast agreements. They lack much on how to proceed when the agreement fails. Who will acknowledge that Security Council Resolution 1701 failed?
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH SLAMS SYRIA On the 10th anniversary of Bashar Assad's reign, his present from Human Rights Watch (HRW) was denunciation for breaking his promise to reform the political system. Although the younger Assad has made a few economic reforms, in banking, tourism, foreign investment, and private education, he has not made any political reforms. His people remain as oppressed by his regime as by his father's. HRW reports that the secret police arrest without warrants, torture without restraint, and censor the wide Web as by banning Facebook. Assad gives free room and board to political dissidents, human rights activists, and journalists. At first he let small gatherings discuss politics, then he moved the discussants to Syrian prisons (IMRA, 7/17/10). I think that when a tepid reformer loosens controls, people loosen self-restraint. This lack of order frightens dictators back into repressing freedom. Assad has a particular problem. This problem that helps keep him dependent upon dictatorship and upon Iran. Assad belongs to the near-Shia minority sect of Alawites. If he gives the Sunni majority an opening, they would overthrow his Alawite rule in favor of their own. HRW is doing its job, with Syria. Otherwise, most anti-Zionists show no concern for the millions of oppressed Syrians, even while they profess opposition to Israel on behalf of Arabs whom they claim Israel is oppressing. Their inconsistency puts their idealism and their criticism of Israel into doubt. Note to readers: I copied these guidelines for readers' comments from another website, because of their similarity to Examiner.com's: 1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment. Enforcement is at Management discretion. On that website, editors review comments before letting them be posted. The posting of a comment is no indication of editorial endorsement. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
IRAN'S FOUR VIOLATIONS: NUCLEAR, STATE-SANCTIONED GENOCIDAL
INCITEMENT, SUPPORT FOR GENOCIDAL TERROR AND REPRESSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Posted by Boris Celser, July 22, 2010. |
|
This was written by Ariel Rothfield of the Medill School of
Journalism, Northwestern University, on assignment in Jerusalem with
Israel Resource News Agency
Canadian former Justice Minister Reveals: US government gave $107 billion in contracts to firms trading with Iran, while sanctions were in place |
|
In a Jerusalem press conference held on Tuesday, former Canadian justice minister Irwin Cotler called for more "threat specific" sanctions to be placed against Iran. According to Prof. Cotler, Iran remains in violation of four distinct threats: the nuclear, the state-sanctioned genocidal incitement, the support for Genocidal Terror, and the massive repression of human rights. The world has been taking action only against the nuclear threat, while ignoring the Iranian regime's other offences. Human rights violations in Iran attracted world attention for a short while after the disputed 2009 elections, but the outrage over Neda's death has died down and new "Nedas" — an everyday event — are ignored. According to Cotler's report, Iran has the highest number of juvenile executions in the world. From 2005 until 2008, the country executed 26 offenders, making up 80 percent of total amount in the world. "Iran has emerged as a clear and present danger to international peace and security, to the Middle East and regional stability, and increasingly and alarmingly so, to the rights of its own people," Cotler said. "Unless we have what I call a comprehensive set of remedies and sanctions, for the four fold critical mass of threats, we will not begin to properly hold up Ahmadinejad's Iran to account." The solution he offered was a 200-page report called "The Danger of a Nuclear, Genocidal and Rights-Violating Iran: The Responsibility to Prevent Petition." Endorsed by 100 scholars, former world leaders, parliamentarians and human rights activists, the report contains witness testimony and documentary evidence of each of the four threats. "We want to sound the alarm and wake up the international community," Cotler said. "The Western belief is that if we turn a blind eye, we will be better off," said former High Court of Justice president Meir Shamgar, who also spoke at the conference. "This is exactly what occurred in the 30s." To fix this problem, the report proposes an 18-point road map for action. It calls upon the international community to heed their obligation and stop such violations before they begin. Incitement to Genocide is considered an early warning sign of potential Genocide, and is also a prosecutable crime in itself. "There had been a critical mass of precursors to genocide in Ahmadinejad's Iran, constituting thereby not only the prelude to a preventable tragedy, but a crime in and of itself under international law," said Cotler. "Simply put, Iran's leaders have already committed a crime of incitement to genocide." Additionally Cotler said violations could be prevented by limiting foreign visits from Iranian leaders and by freezing their assets. If governments terminate their contract with companies doing business with Iran, these leaders will stop getting money in their pocket, he said. Which would help to stop the repression of the Iranian population. However, Cotler warned that in order to succeed, countries like the US need to stop sending "mixed and disturbing messages to the corporate world regarding doing business in Iran." According to the report, the US government gave $107 billion in contracts to firms trading with Iran, while sanctions were in place. "The United Nations Security Council Resolution has been honored more in the breach than in the observance," Cotler said. "So in the matter of sanctions, not only is it crucial that they be adopted, but that they be enforced and done multilaterally." |
|
THE VAST LEFT-WING MEDIA CONSPIRACY
Posted by Bryna Berch, July 22, 2010. |
|
This was written by Fred Barnes and it appeared as an opinion piece in todays' Wall Street Journal. Mr. Barnes is executive editor of the Weekly Standard and a commentator on Fox News Channel. This article is archived at
|
|
When I'm talking to people from outside Washington, one question inevitably comes up: Why is the media so liberal? The question often reflects a suspicion that members of the press get together and decide on a story line that favors liberals and Democrats and denigrates conservatives and Republicans. My response has usually been to say, yes, there's liberal bias in the media, but there's no conspiracy. The liberal tilt is an accident of nature. The media disproportionately attracts people from a liberal arts background who tend, quite innocently, to be politically liberal. If they came from West Point or engineering school, this wouldn't be the case. Now, after learning I'd been targeted for a smear attack by a member of an online clique of liberal journalists, I'm inclined to amend my response. Not to say there's a media conspiracy, but at least to note that hundreds of journalists have gotten together, on an online listserv called JournoList, to promote liberalism and liberal politicians at the expense of traditional journalism. My guess is that this and other revelations about JournoList will deepen the distrust of the national press. True, participants in the online clubhouse appear to hail chiefly from the media's self-identified left wing. But its founder, Ezra Klein, is a prominent writer for the Washington Post. Mr. Klein shut down JournoList last month — a wise decision. It's thanks to Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller website that we know something about JournoList, though the emails among the liberal journalists were meant to be private. (Mr. Carlson hasn't revealed how he obtained the emails.) In June, the Daily Caller disclosed a series of JournoList musings by David Weigel, then a Washington Post blogger assigned to cover conservatives. His emails showed he loathes conservatives, and he was subsequently fired. This week, Mr. Carlson produced a series of JournoList emails from April 2008, when Barack Obama's presidential bid was in serious jeopardy. Videos of the antiwhite, anti-American sermons of his Chicago pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, had surfaced, first on ABC and then other networks. WSJ.com Columnist John Fund reports on a media scandal. Also, Columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady breaks down the President's pledge to end bailouts and analyzes the Fed Chairman's latest visit to Capitol Hill. JournoList contributors discussed strategies to aid Mr. Obama by deflecting the controversy. They went public with a letter criticizing an ABC interview of Mr. Obama that dwelled on his association with Mr. Wright. Then, Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent proposed attacking Mr. Obama's critics as racists. He wrote: "If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. ... This makes them 'sputter' with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction." No one on JournoList endorsed the Ackerman plan. But rather than object on ethical grounds, they voiced concern that the strategy would fail or possibly backfire. Among journalists in general, there's always been a herd instinct. Eugene McCarthy, the Minnesota senator and Democratic presidential candidate, once described political writers as birds on a telephone wire. When one bird flew to the wire across the street, they all did. In Mr. Ackerman's case, I'm glad none of the birds joined him across the street. We've often seen media groupthink in campaigns. In 1980, most of the media decided that President Jimmy Carter was being mean-spirited in his re-election effort with his harsh denunciations of Ronald Reagan, his Republican opponent. The media turned the meanness issue into major story. In 1992, journalists treated the economy as if it were dead in the water, though a recovery from a mild recession had begun early the previous year. I could go on. I think JournoList is — or was — fundamentally different, and not simply because one of its members proposed to make palpably false accusations. As best I can tell, those involved in JournoList considered themselves part of a team. And their goal was to make sure the team won. In 2008, this was Mr. Obama's team. More recently, the goal seems to have been to defeat the conservative team. Until JournoList came along, liberal journalists were rarely part of a team. Neither are conservative journalists today, so far as I know. If there's a team, no one has asked me to join. As a conservative, I normally write more favorably about Republicans than Democrats and I routinely treat conservative ideas as superior to liberal ones. But I've never been part of a discussion with conservative writers about how we could most help the Republican or the conservative team. My experience with other conservative journalists is that they are loners. One of the most famous conservative columnists of the past half-century, the late Robert Novak, is a good example. I knew him well for 35 years. He didn't tell me what stories he was working on nor ask what I was planning to write. He never mentioned how we might promote Republicans or aid the conservative cause, nor did I. What was particularly pathetic about the scheme to smear Mr. Obama's critics was labeling them as racists. The accusation has been made so frequently in recent years, without evidence to back it up, that it has little effect. It's now the last refuge of liberal scoundrels. The first call I got after the Daily Caller unearthed the emails involving me was from Karl Rove. He said he wanted to talk to his "fellow racist." We laughed about this. But the whole episode was also sad. I didn't sputter at the thought of being called a racist. But it was sad to see what journalism, or at least a segment of it, had come to. |
|
FROM ISRAEL: IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE
Posted by Arlene Kushner, July 21, 2010. |
|
I begin today with a link to a shortened version (a trailer) to a new video called, "For the Sake of Nakba," produced by the Center for Near East Policy Research.
Please! Take five minutes to see it, bookmark it, and share it absolutely as widely as you can. Regularly I receive links to various videos that are referred to as "must see." Or, "this will blow your mind." All of this, and more, applies to this trailer. Let's get the movement started, and let's see this making the rounds of the Internet. ~~~~~~~~~~ "Nakba" means catastrophe in Arabic, and it is how the Arabs refer to the founding of Israel. In this film you will see how UNRWA — that purportedly benign humanitarian agency that cares for the poor suffering refugees — promotes "the right of return" and the destruction of Israel via jihad. Everyone but everyone needs to have this information in order to be well informed. In fact, while you are sharing this, please make certain that your elected officials in Congress have the information. Provide the link, and the one short paragraph of explanation, above, about Nakba and what you will see in the film. Ask your elected officials what they are doing to block UNRWA's current policies. The US provides UNRWA with more than 30% of its budget — Congress has clout, if it chooses to use it. For your Congresspersons:
For your Senators:
Ask everyone you send this to, to do the same. A groundswell of protest can make a difference and Congressional action on UNRWA would have a huge impact on the situation here. ~~~~~~~~~~ Just because something is anticipated doesn't mean it needs to be accepted with equanimity. We knew that Obama's lovefest with Israel was just an act, that his intentions towards us had changed not an iota. Now, already, we are confronting the confirmation of this. And it is enraging. This came through yesterday from JINSA — one of the most trustworthy and on-the-mark agencies around — in its Report # 1007: "Andrew J. Shapiro, Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, was dispatched last Friday to the Brookings Institution to advance the charm offensive that seeks to convince Israelis and American supporters of Israel that the Obama Administration is Israel's best friend. He worked hard, but his bottom line was that Israel — not the Palestinians and not the Arab states — needs to do more for peace, specifically the 'two state solution' to which the administration is wedded but which appears increasingly unlikely." JINSA cited a "sometimes reliable source" as having said: "Officials acknowledged that the White House, which endorsed $20 billion worth of arms sales to the Middle East in 2009, has not approved any Israeli requests for combat platforms or other major military sales in 2009 and 2010." JINSA will be confirming this. ~~~~~~~~~~ What the US has provided is $205 million for Israel's Iron Dome rocket defense system. But lest you imagine that this was motivated by a genuine concern for our security, take a look at what JINSA tells us Shapiro said about it, not once, but twice: First: "It is our hope that the Administration's expanded commitment to Israel's security will advance the process by helping the Israeli people seize this opportunity and take the tough decisions necessary for a comprehensive peace." And then: "Bolstering Israel's security against the rocket threat will not by itself facilitate a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Conversely, a two-state solution will not in and of itself bring an end to these threats. But our support for Iron Dome and similar efforts do provide Israel with the capabilities and the confidence that it needs to take the tough decisions ahead for a comprehensive peace." In case anyone was in doubt, JINSA clarified what is meant by the term "tough decisions": "a euphemism for ceding territory, ceding political rights, ceding security control to others." "There was more in the speech that is worth noting," wrote JINSA, "and we will, but it will take a while before we get over the idea that Obama Administration support for Israel's defense — such as that support is — is a function of the administration's determination to have Israel take actions that increase the risk to its people." (emphasis added) ~~~~~~~~~~ I am not exactly happy about what follows here, either. But in this instance we are doing it to ourselves: Israel has provided a response to the UN regarding the Goldstone Report. Commitments have been made by us regarding ways to reduce civilian casualties in future conflicts. Most notably, these include: [] Restricting the use of white phosphorous as a smoke screen. This use of phosphorous is legal under international law — it is not using the phosphorous as a weapon. But, OK, it can inadvertently cause civilian damage sometimes. This is particularly bad news. In all instances — whether taking on Hezbollah in Lebanon, or Hamas in Gaza, or terrorists in Judea and Samaria — we are dealing with those who do not play by the rules and could not care less about loss of civilian life. Yet it is our forces that will be monitored every step of the way and forever held accountable. This inhibits our ability to defend ourselves, for we will be afraid of being second-guessed after the fact. Not only is this not a way to win a war (and winning is the critical point here), there is no other fighting force in the world held to such standards. No one imagines that the US military must have a "humanitarian affairs officer" in each combat unit — not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan — in spite of civilian casualties. While the irony is that we are the most ethical fighting force in the world. ~~~~~~~~~~ The report to the UN further speaks about investigations into the actions of our soldiers, with specific mention of two IDF soldiers who have been indicted for putting a Palestinian minor at risk, and a soldier who is suspected of killing a Palestinian civilian. It is appropriate for us to stay on top of such incidents, and to levy charges and penalties where appropriate. But what sticks in the craw is our need (or perceived need) to report this to the UN. Fighting is not a clean endeavor, and even in the most humane of forces incidents will occur (sometimes because of maliced motivations and sometimes because of poor judgment in a difficult situation). Not only are we making ourselves accountable to some of the biggest bums going — representatives of nations who have no regard for human rights — this all feels as if it's a sort of acknowledgement that there was some merit to the Goldstone Report. Or so it will be interpreted. The standards to which we are being held, and to which we are permitting ourselves to be held, exceed the standards applied anywhere else. It is a part of the international effort to deprive us of legitimacy. ~~~~~~~~~~ Speaking of holding Israel to a different standard, we have an article by Khaled Abu Toameh, written for Hudson NY, which asks: "When was the last time the UN Security Council met to condemn an Arab government for its mistreatment of Palestinians? ~~~~~~~~~~ This report, written by Joe Klein, which first appeared in Time Magazine, has now been picked by several other sources. "An Attack on Iran is Back on the [US] Table": "...when Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told Fox News on June 20, "We do not accept the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons," he was reflecting a new reality in the military and intelligence communities. Diplomacy and economic pressure remain the preferred means to force Iran to negotiate a nuclear deal, but there isn't much hope that's going to happen. So the military option is very much back on the table. This, my friends, is good news. ~~~~~~~~~~ So is the fact that Russia has decided not to deliver to Iran the S-300 surface to air missile defense system — it has already been sold to Iran, but the most recent sanctions preclude delivery. ~~~~~~~~~~ Evelyn Gordon has written a fascinating piece in the Commentary blog on how Israel can win the PR war. In essence, it recommends going on the defensive instead of being defensive. You've heard this theme here before. Gordon cites PR guru Frank Luntz: "...when people have preconceived notions about Israel, it's very hard to dislodge those notions — to convince them, for instance, that Israel did not wantonly target civilians in last year's war in Gaza, or has not created a humanitarian crisis there by its blockade. But it is possible to persuade them that no matter how bad Israel is, its enemies are much, much worse — and therefore even someone who dislikes Israel should nevertheless back it against those enemies." Says Gordon, another PR expert, Sarah Kass, explains it thus: "Israel's enemies are conducting a classic PR offensive, designed to keep the focus relentlessly on Israel and away from themselves. Thus they never talk about themselves; they talk only about Israel. ~~~~~~~~~~ This approach works. Luntz told of a meeting he had with "high income, high education, politically connected" Brits who were "so hostile to Israel" that "I'd given up ... There was no message that resonated remotely well with them. And I finally said 'to hell with it. We'll give them the Hamas Charter'." At the end, "28 of the 30 said, 'How dare Israel negotiate with these people?'"
~~~~~~~~~~ The Turks are strengthening its ties to Hamas, as the Turkish FM has met with Mashaal. But there seems to be a trade-off here: We are now hosting a Greek prime minister for the first time since 1992, as George Papandreou (son of Andreas) is moderating his stance towards Israel. Analysts feel that the tensions between Israel and Turkey (historical rival, if not arch enemy of Greece) is a factor in what's happening. ~~~~~~~~~~ Fatah officials are saying they will back direct talks between the PA and Israel, provided that Abbas's terms are met. We are already familiar with those demands, which include an understanding about borders and security up front. Muhammad Dahlan, a member of the Revolutionary Council of Fatah (that name has a moderate ring, does it not?), says that "Fatah wants to see real progress on the issues of borders and security. We also want a complete freeze of settlement construction, including natural growth, especially in occupied East Jerusalem." Especially, huh? ~~~~~~~~~~ The best response is Ari Harow's piece, "Why Jerusalem Matters," from the JPost, on eve of Tisha B'Av. "On this Tisha Be'av day, as we approach direct talks with the Palestinian Authority, it is imperative that we state loudly and clearly that Jerusalem is our heart and soul, our national raison d'etre. Guaranteeing a united Jerusalem without one iota of hesitation or equivocation is not a matter of choice, but rather a national obligation." Amen! Harrow, by the way, until quite recently was bureau chief for PM Netanyahu. Hope his former boss is paying attention. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
LEFTWING ACADEMIC FASCISM NOW SPREADS TO THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY
Posted by Steven Plaut, July 21, 2010. |
|
It seems that the Hebrew University intends to challenge Ben Gurion University and Tel Aviv University as the worst center for academic fascism in Israel. Just a few days back we posted a piece on the saga of the Hebrew
University leftist sociology professor accused of raping at least 10
of his students. The Hebrew University circled their wagons around
him, backed him, protected him, and he is still on the payroll,
teaching (and fondling?) his students. That article is here.
The same leftist Israeli media that had a field day attacking (and continuing to report in detail every nuance concerning) a prominent Rabbi accused of making sexual advances on his male students have completely forgotten and suppressed that story of the accused tenured rapist. But the Hebrew University DOES fire some faculty members. Maariv
today reports (only in Hebrew — at
Baratz's felony? It seems he is guilty of being a non-leftist. And the Hebrew University thinks that disqualifies him to work there. This is not MY take on the firing, but Maariv's!!! Baratz has worked with the Zionist student organization Im Tirtzu, another felony. And he works with the Likudish Shalem Center. Oh the Humanity! His firing has set off a firestorm of rage against the "Hebrew" University. The Maariv web page has almost 600 talkbacks on it, many from LEFTIST students who support Baratz, say he was their best teacher, and denouncing the university! Many of his faculty colleagues from the Left have also expressed outrage at the firing. Ron's email is here: baratz@pluto.huji.ac.il in case you want to send him a note. It is kind of a shame that he is not a leftist rapist, because then
he could keep his job and salary and maybe even purchase vibrators
with his research funds (as Hebrew University Prof. Eyal Ben-Ari did!!
For details, see this:
"Dissent or Destruction?"
Edward Alexander is the co-author, with Paul Bogdanor, of The Jewish Divide over Israel: Accusers and Defenders (Transaction Publishers). A recent addition to the ever-burgeoning genre of books instructing Israel on the most suitable method of ceasing to exist (one-state solution, no-state solution, final solution) is adorned by the following from Noam Chomsky: Constance Hilliard raises very critical issues...and unless those who call themselves 'supporters of Israel' are willing to face these moral and geopolitical realities, they may in reality be supporters of Israel's moral degeneration and ultimate destruction. It is commonplace that moral passions are far more imperious and impatient than self-seeking ones, and who could have a stronger sense of his own moral rectitude than a man who has been an apologist for Pol Pot in Cambodia, a collaborator with neo-Nazi Holocaust-deniers in France, and a cohort to anti-Semitism-deniers everywhere? "Anti-Semitism," Chomsky has declared, "is no longer a problem, fortunately. It's raised, but it's raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control; That's why anti-Semitism is becoming an issue..." Beautiful and touching words, but words by no means unusual in the parlance of those who deem Israel uniquely evil and, with help from its "supporters," responsible for every misery on the planet with the (possible) exception of global warming. (Here reality outpaces my rhetorical flourishes: Clare Short, a member of Tony Blair's cabinet until 2003, charged that Israel is "much worse than the original apartheid state" because it "undermines the international community's reaction to global warming.") Chomsky is generally and mistakenly identified as "a critic of Israel." But he is by no means the only beneficiary of the flagrantly euphemistic redefinition of "criticism" where Israel and its numerous enemies are concerned. Examples, in fact, abound. A Vassar professor (writing in Judaism Magazine, no less) referred to the second Intifada, during which Palestinian Arab suicide bombers, pogromists, and lynch mobs slaughtered a thousand people (most of them Israeli Jews) and wounded thousands more, as "a critique of Zionism." A Panglossian writer in the Chronicle of Higher Education assures readers that "calls to destroy Israel, or to throw it into the Mediterranean Sea...are not evidence of hatred of Jews," but merely "reflect a quarrel with the State of Israel." Some critique, some quarrel. When questions were raised in November 2003 about the indecency of Harvard and Columbia honoring and playing host to the Oxford poetaster, blood libel subscriber, and London Review of Books regular Tom Paulin after he had urged that Jews living in Judea/Samaria "should be shot dead" and announced that he "never believed that Israel had the right to exist at all," his apologists in Cambridge and Morningside Heights defended his right "to criticize Israeli policy." But the prize for redefinition of the term "criticism" should probably go to the Swedish Chancellor of Justice Goran Lambertz who, in 2006, ruled that repeated calls from the Grand Mosque of Stockholm to "Kill the Jews" by dispatching suicide bombers to Israel and other Jewish population centers, was not racial incitement to murder. Rather, ruled this Solomon, they: Should be judged differently and therefore be regarded as permissible because they were used by one side in an ongoing and far-reaching conflict where calls to arms and insults are part of the everyday climate in the rhetoric that surrounds this conflict. Just what, then, does "criticism" mean? The Victorian poet and critic Matthew Arnold defined criticism (by which he did not mean merely literary criticism) as "the attempt to see the object as in itself it really is." Writing in 1865, he believed he was still living in the shadow of the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror, but also in the new age of science. He wanted criticism to model itself on the disinterested observation of science and not the fierce political partisanship that derived from the Revolution. Like science, criticism should espouse no party and no cause except the cause of truth. Its proper aim is to see the object as it really is, not to destroy the object. Dickens, a few years earlier in Tale of Two Cities (1859), had encapsulated the murderous aspect of French politicide by mocking its two favorite slogans: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity — or Death" and (Chamfort's version) "Sois Mon Frere, ou Je Te Tue." (Be my brother, or I'll kill you.) The "critics of Israel," who deny its right to exist and threaten it with destruction if it fails to dance to their tune, may be dishonest, despicable, consumed with blood-lust, but let us not deny them their triumph. In the war of ideas, they have beaten us at almost every turn — and by "us" I mean those for whom the foundation of Israel was one of the few redeeming acts of a blood-soaked and shameful century. A widely-publicized 2007 BBC poll of 28,000 people in 27 countries shows Israel as the "least-liked" country in the entire world. Among Europeans polled, Israel was most disliked in Germany. Yes, in the very country where the Jews' "right to live" was once a popular topic, Israel-haters outpolled Israel-admirers by 77% to 10%. And still greater triumphs than those in the war for public opinion may yet await these "critics." Their threats to Israel are not idle ones. On their own, the Chomskys, Paulins, Norman Finkelsteins, Tony Judts and Alexander Cockburns of this world cannot visit upon Israel the terrible fate they think it deserves. But they know they have a powerful ally named Iran, which is under the leadership of someone bent not merely, on politicide (like the "critics") but on genocide; someone who daily promises to "remove Israel from the map" and watches with glee as the international noose tightens around Israel's throat and the umbrellas go up in Europe and Washington. Note how many articles are suddenly appearing in the Israeli press about academic freedom — and this one actually appeared in Haaretz and was actually written by a TAU prof! And it actually favors academic freedom! This is shocking because Haaretz generally opposes academic freedom for non-traitors, and certainly opposes pluralism and diversity of any sort ... in Haaretz!! "What do boycotts have to do with academic freedom?"
The writer is a professor of constitutional law at Tel Aviv University The pretension of wrapping political critique in academic garb will end up curtailing the right to criticize — as if people who do not enjoy academic freedom should not express their opinions. A university lecturer calls the naval commandos who raided the Mavi Marmara cold-blooded murderers. Another lecturer refuses to permit a student returning from reserve duty to enter the classroom in uniform. A third tells his students that he does not believe reserve duty in the territories justifies absence from class — but he is prepared to excuse the absence of students who attend a protest at a checkpoint. Yet another lecturer calls for a boycott of Israel because of the occupation. His colleague calls for an academic boycott of Israeli universities, including the one that employs him. Another lecturer's students claim he silences them when they disagree with him. ... But the greatest threat to academic freedom is the academic boycott. This weapon — even if those who preach it are trying to target government policy — strikes a mortal blow at the freedom to research and develop, because it cuts the scholar off from sources of funding for his research and from colloquy with colleagues, which is essential to academic research. Nor can we ignore the fact that those who call for a boycott will not be harmed by it themselves. They will enjoy the best of both worlds — both the rights conferred by belonging to the boycotted university and the right to exemption from the very boycott they advocate. Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist,
a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author
of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and
satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic
community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is
|
|
A HOLY WAR — PART II: THE JEWISH TEMPLE IN PRESENT DAY — OUTSIDE THE WALLS OF THE TEMPLE MOUNT
Posted by Ari Bussel, July 20, 2010. |
|
Part I is below. |
|
Some believe the Jewish Temple still exists, but is invisible to the ordinary person. Part of the belief is that it ascended to heaven and will reemerge when the Messiah arrives. I must admit when first presented with this concept, I found it quite incredible. I now retract my own doubts, for I witnessed the impossible, making it easier for me to grasp the enormity of the pronunciation. All that is needed is to change our frame of reference. Imagine you live in a house. You go down to the basement and drill a hole into the ground, a well of sorts. One such hole can be used to dump garbage or sewage, a disposal or storage tank. Another can be used to bring up water from the underground, like a well. Now you are standing some distance underneath, inside the ground. You are in a large cistern, with arches overhead and a pool of water beneath. Above the ceiling is another world altogether, a house and adjacent to it a church. The house is unaware you exist, the occupants believing they are on solid ground. All that was needed was a change of the frame of reference. Still in the house, that is not imaginary at all, you decided to dig further and found a chamber, at times a whole set of chambers, thus extending your house to much greater dimensions. We are Alice who wonders through the cabinet to another wonderful world. Now, join me on a tour. We enter just to the northwest of the Western Wall (Kotel, in Hebrew), at the corner of the 2,000 square meters (21,500 square feet) plaza before the Kotel. It is a very hot and humid, sunny day outside, and we are delighted to escape to the coolness. Our first stop is underneath an arch. We are part of a group of some 50 people, and the arch is enormous, allowing us to stand in comfort as other groups arrive. Our guide points to the several levels below us. We stand above an abyss watching the ongoing archeological excavations. The site is quite amazing, cool and comfortable, as we start on our journey into the earth, along the Western Wall. "Wait," I say. "The Western Wall is outside, extending 19 meters high (62') and 57 meters long (187'). There are 28 stones that make up the height of the Kotel outside." But apparently there are 17 additional stones underneath, unexposed, at a depth of additional 13 meters (43'). Taken altogether, from base to full height, the Kotel is only a portion of what once was the Western Wall. It once extended 60 meters (197') into the air. Our guide explains we are stopped under an arch of a bridge leading into the Temple Mount. Currently, it is completely underground, but once was a major engineering structure. Hundreds of thousands of Jews would ascend to Jerusalem three times a year and roads were needed to accommodate them. A water supply was also necessary, both for drinking and for bathing (physical and spiritual purification) before entering the Temple Mount. The area bustled with commercial activity, from money exchange to various vendors, not much different from today. We continue our descent into the tunnel. Think of a rectangle within a rectangle. The Kotel outside is like a window on the side of a building, the Western Wall. 2,000 years ago, it was several floors above ground and there were several floors further above it. The Wall itself extends a length of 488 meters (1,600') to a height of 60 meters (192'). Thus, we still have some 320 meters of the Western Wall under the streets and houses of the Old City of Jerusalem. If you told me there was an ancient city beneath the streets of Jerusalem, I would not have believed you. But as we walked alongside the full length of the Western Wall, as we reached the point closest to where the Holy of Holies once stood (and some say still stands) and as we continued to the point where the very rock of the mountain was the corner stone for the Jewish Temple, I could not contain my amazement. Once there was a road that surrounded the Wall where people congregated, traded and rested. The road begins at the same corner point, then disappears into the ground, as it was along the base of the Wall. We were walking along another road, midway up the wall and way above us were today's houses, stores and streets of the Old City. Below us are huge, carefully crafted stones, with outer-edge frames, each stone hewn in Herodian style some 2,000 years ago. They constitute a pile that has become the ground on which the road where we now walk was constructed. 1,940 years ago this coming Tuesday, the 20th of July, on the Ninth of the month of Av, 70CE (AD), the Romans destroyed the Second Temple that was surrounded by four supporting walls, one on each side of the four winds. The Romans chiseled away the stones of these supporting walls, one at a time, throwing them to the surrounding plazas and streets underneath. We know that since the stones still lie there. Some of the stones were enormous, weighing upwards of five tons (ten thousand pounds). The idea was the utter and complete destruction of Jewish presence via the obliteration of the very essence, or heart of the Jews. Tear the heart out, kill the Jews! Stone after stone they continued, from a height of 60 meters they managed to descend some 30 or 40 meters. This was an enormous achievement, but their hatred was both a catalyst and driving motivation. Nothing would stop them. Not quite, for the demarcations of God's Temple were magically protected. The Romans were forced to stop after immense effort, leaving a magnificent base of the Western Wall, unexposed above ground and yet accessible in a city-underneath-the-current-Old City. As with most things in the Bible, there is a "logical" explanation that helps rational skeptics, comprehend the "magic." One of the stones "mid-way" was 3.5 meters (11.5') tall and 13.6 meters (44.6') long. Some estimates put the weight of this "single stone" at 570 tons, or about 1.14 million pounds. As much as the Romans tried, they were unable to break or move it and it remained, protecting all the layers beneath. An amazing engineering feat or glorious plans by the Almighty? As we began ascending at the end of the tour, we exited into the Via Dolorosa, emerging from the Jewish holiest site to that of the Christians'. The security guards surrounding the group now became very attentive as a group of innocent tourist is ripe prey for the predators surrounding us. We were reminded that the third element of the three major monotheistic religions is not peaceful, its intentions threatening and methods unmistaken. We were thankful for the security guards, saddened by the very need, alarmed by the threat. We completed the walk back to today's Western Wall Plaza above ground. From 1948 to 1967, under Muslim rule, Jews were forbidden to pray next to the Western Wall. Today the threat is even greater, for the mountaintop may serve as a catalyst, a ruse, a convenient opportunity for the break of the great clash of civilizations — modernity and 7th Century, 21st Century and barbarism — he spark that could ignite World War III. For the past 43 years, excavations at the Western Wall "Jewish side" were conducted most carefully, under both religious and scientific supervision including historians, archeologists and engineers. Part of the Western Wall was exposed, along with the plazas, roads and bridges made of arches leading to the Temple Mount. But we do not know what was exposed on the other ("Muslim") side and what purpose it may ultimately serve. On the "Jewish side," millions of tourists pass, of all faiths, of all nationalities. They come, they respect and are gifted with an experience they will cherish the rest of their lives. On the "Muslim side," where the Jewish Holy of Holies once stood, and is now lifted into the atmosphere to avoid desecration by hatred and calls to murder the Jews, there must be the very same spaces. Another city-underneath-the-City. What evil secrets does it shelter within? The two are separated by one wall that has stood now for close to two thousand years and was formed by massive, ancient stones, glued by a magical construction. Immovable, either by man or by the forces of nature, they mark and protect, they remind and separate. They are a monument to the story that cannot be rebuked by the removal of tons of earth mixed with historical, archeological and Biblical artifacts by the other side. There, in the spaces of the "Muslim side," preparations are undoubtedly underway for the day when the work of the Romans will be completed. Muslims will be called to ascend to the Temple Mount, and protect it from the Jews, Zionists and Israelis. Yet, what the Romans were unable to achieve 1,940 years ago, what Hitler was unable to complete 65 years ago, and what they are attempting to usher in the very near future, will not succeed. They will fail once again for there is a greater design, a protective "magic" that surrounds the Holy City. Who knows, if we truly believe, possibly the Temple will once again descent from Heaven to Earth, and we will witness the miracle in our lifetimes. You are invited to take the same journey via a virtual tour at thekotel.org, or come and visit Israel and Jerusalem, the Kotel and the Western Wall Tunnels to live this experience yourself. Contact Ari Bussel at busselari@gmail.com |
|
CARDOZO ACADEMY — THOUGHTS TO PONDER — BOYCOTT(1)
Posted by Asher Eder, July 20, 2010. |
|
"Some people like the Jews, and some do not. But no
thoughtful man can deny the fact that they are, beyond any question,
the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has appeared in
the world."
The anti-Semitic world has a hard time with us Jews and we should feel pity for all those who work relentlessly to give us a bad name. They want to boycott us in academia, journalism, European governments, the market place, and even just in the streets of daily life. Indeed, we must admit that we are a real nuisance. It is not easy to live with us Jews; we are troublemakers and annoyingly irritating. There is no way of escaping this fact. The problem with us Jews is that we are constantly breaking the rules. For thousands of years we have survived empires that did everything to try and destroy us — whether it was the Egyptians, the Romans, the Greeks, the Germans, or others. In the 20th century it looked as if they had finally succeeded. Six million of us were killed in the Holocaust. But instead of us Jews disappearing, we decided that after two thousand years of exile it would be better to go home and rebuild our own country. And so we did. And what took other nations hundreds and hundreds of years to build, we did in only a few. What was possible we did very quickly, and what was impossible took us a little longer. Not only did we violate the rules of history in exile, but we became the greatest "chutzpah-niks" on earth while rebuilding our 4000-year-old homeland. Who would deny that this is highly irritating? And now they want to boycott us. But how can they? It would be suicide. Truly boycotting Jews, after all, would mean a lot more than targeting a few Israeli products or some Universities. Anti-Semites would have to boycott many products on which their lives depend. Medications for all sorts of illnesses, produced by Teva and Abic, are only one example. What about Multiple Sclerosis? Israelis discovered a blood test by which one can distinguish between mild and severe cases. And think of people who suffer from spinal injuries, paralysis, breathing problems, depression, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, smallpox virus, DNA breakdown, etc. In all these areas of medicine, Jews in Israel have made major contributions towards healing and improving the quality of life for people around the world. If not for these remarkable Jewish discoveries, most anti-Semites, if not all, would be confined to bed with serious illnesses, and some would have died long ago. So, please have some pity on them! They have a really hard time with us! What about Windows Operating Systems, voice mail, AOL Instant Messenger (invented by four Jewish kids!), the latest developments for the cellular phone, and anti-terror systems, all developed by Jews in this terrible, obnoxious country called Israel? And let us not forget that Israel produces more scientific papers and has more start-up companies, per capita, than any other nation. Except for Silicon Valley, it has the highest concentration of high tech companies in the world. It ranks #2 in the world of venture capital funds! Would you not feel a little jealous? Is some pity for the anti-Semite not in place? Not only would many be ill, or dead, but those remaining alive would not dare to board a plane or be able to write anti-Semitic slurs using their computers. For that matter, even communicating by cell phone with their fellow anti-Semites would be impossible! And then there is this man called Jesus. He was a Jew who introduced some very important Jewish moral ideals to the Western world. He takes center stage in the New Testament, the most admired book in lands where millions of anti-Semites live. Not only that, but he is the most admired man in the entire West, worshipped by millions as nothing less than the son of God. Just imagine — a Jewish boy! And if this is not enough, everyone knows that if he would be alive today, he would not eat at the anti-Semite's home but would ask for a kosher restaurant run by a Jew with a beard and peyoth (side curls). How terrible! How do you expect the anti-Semite to react? Without some of the Jewish teachings of this man, much of so-called Western civilization would still find itself in a primitive, cannibal-like stage in which anti-Semites, while sipping coffee in a restaurant and thinking how to become more sophisticated anti-Semites, would have to run like the devil so as not to get eaten alive by one of their fellow men. But how paradoxical! Anti-Semites are dead scared of this very man. Why? Because it is this man who brought these Jewish ethics and moral standards to our western world: the very same ethics and standards that these anti-Semites wish to destroy! So who would not hate the Jews for giving birth to this disturbing man? Anti-Semites do not spit on the Jews because they are Jesus killers, but because they are Jesus givers! They want to re-enact the crucifixion of their "savior" by torturing the Jews who gave them this irritating Jew. So have some mercy. These are hard times for anti-Semites! And then, every anti-Semite knows that the USA and Britain would not be what they are today without their Jews. These countries would probably look more like jungles with underdeveloped economies, bad health facilities and lack of scientific discoveries. Their laws, although secularized, are deeply influenced by the Torah and the spirit of the great Jewish prophets. These laws would probably be non-existent, and the anti-Semite would not have the freedom of speech he now so enjoys. Indeed, it does not make sense. Here is a country in the Middle East, no larger than a piece of real estate and so small that it is nearly invisible. One needs a magnifying glass when searching for it on a map. Its main inhabitants, the Jews, and their brothers and sisters all around the world amount to less people than a slight statistical error in the Chinese census. Or, as Sir Isaiah Berlin once said, " have enjoyed rather too much history and too little geography." (3) Yet, we are one of the oldest, if not the oldest nation in the world! For most of our existence we have lived in foreign countries, without an army to protect us and mainly poorer than the poor. But we contribute, per capita, more to this world than any other nation. Just think about it: Would you not get depressed if you were an anti-Semite? And then this: For as long as we have existed, we Jews have not had heroes like Julius Caesar, Titus and other men of military superiority. Instead, we opposed all those "heroisms" that other nations see as their raison d'etre. In fact, we could not understand what there was to admire! We, alternatively, loved our peace-seeking, spiritual leaders such as Moses, Isaiah and Amos. Instead of getting carried away with heroic battles, beautiful women, orgies and other indulgences, we have an unbridled passion for studying and for knowledge. We are obsessed with our Holy Book, which constantly reprimands us and is so demanding. So what do we expect from the anti-Semite who realizes that the Jews poke fun at everything that he holds dear? That they would love us? Yes, for all these thousands of years Jews did not really know (and still seem not to know!) how to fight a war, but paradoxically, we manage to stand up against millions and millions of enemies who surround us. And like the anti-Semite, everyone knows that the Jew will again outlive them, as we have for the past 4000 years. If this is not irritating, what is? But let us not make the mistake of falling into the trap of arrogance and haughtiness. It is not our doing that we are an unusual people "that shall dwell alone and not be reckoned among the nations." (Bamidbar 23.9) It is an ultimate Power that designated us as His instrument in history, commanding us to serve the rest of mankind and remind them of Him and His moral demands. But for anti-Semites, God and His far reaching ethics are irritating. They wish to rid themselves of Him so that they can "get on with their lives." Add to this the fact that anti-Semites make sure that the Jew, his country and his people are the most debated topics in the world, and you understand why they have such a hard time. Under these circumstances, who would not be on the verge of a nervous breakdown? Have some rachmanuth (mercy) on all of those anti-Semites who must cope with these terrible traumas. Understand their frustration and their need to let it all out! And where will they end up? On the couch of a psychiatrist who uses methods developed by a Jew to relieve them of their depression! So, you get the picture? Es is shver tzu sein an anti-Semite! (4) Boycott? Come on! Suicide, you mean! He who laughs last, laughs best. Footnotes (1) This essay with slight differences was published in my book, For the Love of Israel and the Jewish People. Jerusalem: Urim Publications, 2008, p.209-212. (2) Quoted by Geoffrey Wheatcroft in The Controversy of Zion. London: Sinclair-Stevensohn, 1966, xi. (3) The Origins of Israel. 1953, p.143. (4) Based on a famous Yiddish expression, "Es is shver tzu sein a Yid" — "It is hard to be a Jew." Contact Asher Eder by email at avrason@netvision.net.il |
|
AT SHMUELKATZ.COM — REVISITING BIBI'S VISIT
Posted by David Isaac, July 20, 2010. |
|
In "Weinberger's Conversion," (June 3, 1983), Shmuel Katz wondered at then-US Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger's intriguing "metamorphosis" from someone who had publicly hectored and engaged in "outrageous behaviour towards Israel" to "a great admirer of Israel who cannot find a hard word to say about us." Of course, "Weinberger's Conversion" wasn't a conversion at all, but "transparently an expression of the new tactics of the administration as they have matured in the last couple of months." After the failure of "the great Master Plan," which was to see Israel bullied into negotiations to hand over Judea and Samaria, "it was no doubt a relief to be able at least to mend a fence with Mr. Begin," Katz writes. Has Obama converted to Zionism? One can't help draw similarities between "Weinberger's Conversion" then and Obama's "conversion" this week in his meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Obama described the bond between the two countries as "unbreakable." Unfortunately, Obama's "conversion" is about as genuine as was Weinberger's, in reality, simply old strategy clothed in new tactics. Remember, it was only in March that the president unceremoniously ushered Netanyahu in through a back door, denied him a photo op, and then left in the middle of the meeting to go have dinner with his family — behavior that everyone agreed was unprecedented. It was also the president who demanded a "total settlement freeze" and sent his Secretary of State to harangue Israel's prime minister, demanding a stop to all construction in Jewish neighborhoods built in Jerusalem after 1967. The Obama administration's change in attitude is partly motivated by election concerns. Not only did polls in Israel show that a very high percentage (75%) of Israeli Jews felt Obama's behavior toward Israel was unjustified — making the possibility of forcing a change in Israel's leadership unlikely — but also on the domestic front Jewish support was eroding. As important as Netanyahu may have felt this meeting was in order to satisfy an electorate back home that feels dependent on U.S. support, Obama needed it far more in order to shore up American Jewish support for the mid-term elections. Another, more worrisome, reason behind Obama's new approach is Israeli weakening on key issues. In this sense, the meeting is a reward to Netanyahu for "seeing the light." Weinberger's "conversion" was also in part motivated by Israeli softening on key issues. We see the same sort of bending over by Israel today. Obama mentioned Gaza during the meeting, 'commending' Netanyahu for allowing more goods into the Hamas-run Gaza Strip. We don't yet know what other concessions Netanyahu might have made behind closed doors. Remarkably, in an interview with CBS News' Katie Couric the day after his meeting, Netanyahu vociferously defended Obama. Couric brought up the fact that "71% of the Jews in Israel surveyed said they dislike President Obama." Netanyahu responded, "Well, maybe they don't have the opportunity to have the kind of conversations that I had. And maybe they're not aware also of the ongoing cooperation between Israel and the United States." So here we have an Israeli prime minister who has the people of Israel on his side, providing him with the sort of popular backing he needs to resist American pressure, and rather than take advantage of it, he undermines it and bolsters what is clearly the most anti-Israel administration yet. The fact is, when it comes to brass tacks, or "tachlis" as they say in Israel, nothing fundamental has changed. Obama continues to call for "two states living side by side in peace and security" — a fantastical scenario which ignores the Arabs' true, and oft-repeated, aim to wipe Israel off the map. At the same time, we hear Netanyahu going on about how committed he is to peace, promising to push the "peace process" forward within weeks, adding for emphasis, "When I say the next few weeks, that's what I mean." Reading Shmuel Katz's writings, one is struck by a disturbing similarity between Benjamin Netanyahu and Menachem Begin. Shmuel says that Begin had convinced himself that he was the man who would bring Israel peace. In the end, he lost Israel the Sinai peninsula and paved the way for further withdrawals. Whatever was going on in Begin's mind seems to have also infected Netanyahu. He, too, has made peculiar sounds over the years to the effect that he is uniquely positioned to bring peace. His last such remark was two days after his meeting with the president while speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations. Netanyahu said he intended "to confound the skeptics and critics" when it comes to 'negotiating a peace'. Where Israel's leaders are concerned there has been more than enough confounding. Honesty with the Israeli people and the courage to stand up to American pressure would be far more surprising... and appreciated.
This is archived at
|
|
MR. GEERT WILDERS MESSAGE TO THE MUSLIMS: FREE YOURSELVES
Posted by Boris Celser, July 20, 2010. |
|
This is by Geert Wilders and it is archived at
|
|
I first visited an Islamic country in 1982. I was 18 years old and had traveled with a Dutch friend from Eilat in Israel to the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh. We were two almost penniless backpacking students. We slept on the beaches and found hospitality with Egyptians, who spontaneously invited us to tea. I clearly recall my very first impression of Egypt: I was overwhelmed by the kindness, friendliness and helpfulness of its people. I also remember my second strong impression of Egypt: It struck me how frightened these friendly and kind people were. While we were in Sharm el-Sheikh, President Mubarak happened to visit the place. I remember the fear which suddenly engulfed the town when it was announced that Mubarak was coming on an unexpected visit; I can still see the cavalcade of black cars on the day of his visit and feel the almost physical awareness of fear, like a cold chill on that very hot day in Summer. It was a weird experience; Mubarak is not considered the worst of the Islamic tyrants and yet, the fear of the ordinary Egyptians for their leader could be felt even by me. I wonder how Saudis feel when their King is in town, how Libyans feel when Gaddafi announces his coming, how Iraqis must have felt when Saddam Hussein was near. A few years later, I read in the Koran how the 7th century Arabs felt in the presence of Muhammad, who, as several verses describe, "cast terror into their hearts" (suras 8:12, 8:60, 33:26, 59:12). From Sharm el-Sheikh, my friend and I went to Cairo. It was poor and incredibly dirty. My friend and I were amazed that such a poor and filthy place could be a neighbor of Israel, which was so clean. The explanation of the Arabs, with whom we discussed their poverty, was that they were not in any way to blame for this affliction: They said they were the victims of a global conspiracy of "imperialists" and "Zionists", aimed at keeping Muslims poor and subservient. I found that explanation unconvincing. My instinct told me it had something to do with the different cultures of Israel and Egypt. I made a mistake in Cairo. We had almost no money and I was thirsty. One could buy a glass of water at public water collectors. It did not look clean, but I drank it. I got a terrible diarrhea. I went to a hostel where one could rent a spot on the floor for two dollars a day. There I lay for several days, a heap of misery in a crowded, stinking room, with ten other guys. Once Egypt had been the most advanced civilization on earth. Why had it not progressed along with the rest of the world? In the late 1890s, Winston Churchill was a soldier and a war correspondent in British India (contemporary Pakistan) and the Sudan. Churchill was a perceptive young man, whose months in Pakistan and the Sudan allowed him to grasp with amazing clarity what the problem is with Islam and "the curses it lays on its votaries." "Besides the fanatical frenzy, ... there is this fearful fatalistic apathy," he wrote. "The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist where the followers of the Prophet rule or live. ... The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to a sole man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. ... Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities — but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it." And Churchill concluded: "No stronger retrograde force exists in the world." There are people who say that I hate Muslims. I do not hate Muslims. It saddens me how Islam has robbed them of their dignity.What Islam does to Muslims is visible in the way they treat their daughters. On March 11, 2002, fifteen Saudi schoolgirls died as they attempted to flee from their school in the holy city of Mecca. A fire had set the building ablaze. The girls ran to the school gates but these were locked. The keys were in the possession of a male guard, who refused to open the gates because the girls were not wearing the correct Islamic dress imposed on women by Saudi law: face veils and overgarments. The "indecently" dressed girls frantically tried to save their young lives. The Saudi police beat them back into the burning building. Officers of the Mutaween, the "Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice," as the Police are known in Saudi Arabia, also beat passers-by and firemen who tried to help the girls. "It is sinful to approach them," the policemen warned bystanders. It is not only sinful, it is also a criminal offence. Girls are not valued highly in Islam; the Koran says that the birth of a daughter makes a father's "face darken and he is filled with gloom" (sura 43:15). Nevertheless, the incident at the Mecca school drew angry reactions. Islam is inhumane; but Muslims are humans, hence capable of Love — that powerful force which Muhammad despised. Humanity prevailed in the Meccan fathers who were incensed over the deaths of their daughters; it also prevailed in the firemen who confronted the Mutaween when the latter were beating the girls back inside, and in the journalists of the Saudi paper which, for the first time in Saudi history, criticized the much feared and powerful "Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice." However, Muslim protests against Islamic inhumanity are rare. Most Muslims, even in Western countries, visit mosques and listen to shocking Koranic verses and to repulsive sermons without revolting against them. I am an agnosticus myself. But Christians and Jews hold that God created man in His image. They believe that by observing themselves, as free and rational beings capable of love, they can come to know Him. They can even reason with Him, as the Jews have done throughout their history. The Koran, on the contrary, states that "Nothing can be compared with Allah" (sura 16:74, 42:11). He has absolutely nothing in common with us. It is preposterous to suppose that Allah created man in his image. The biblical concept that God is our father is not found in Islam. There is no personal relationship between man and Allah, either. The purpose of Islam is the total submission of oneself and others to the unknowable Allah, whom we must serve through total obedience to Muhammad as leader of the Islamic state (suras 3:31, 4:80, 24:62, 48:10, 57:28). And history has taught us that Muhammad was not at all a prophet of love and compassion, but a mass murderer, a tyrant and a pedophile. Muslims could not have a more deplorable role model. Without individual freedom, it is not surprising that the notion of man as a responsible agent is not much developed in Islam. Muslims tend to be very fatalistic. Perhaps — let us certainly hope so — only a few radicals take the Koranic admonition to wage jihad on the unbelievers seriously. Nevertheless, most Muslims never raise their voice against the radicals. This is the "fearful fatalistic apathy" Churchill referred to. The author Aldous Huxley, who lived in North Africa in the 1920s, made the following observation: "About the immediate causes of things — precisely how they happen — they seem to feel not the slightest interest. Indeed, it is not even admitted that there are such things as immediate causes: God is directly responsible for everything. 'Do you think it will rain?' you ask pointing to menacing clouds overhead. 'If God wills,' is the answer. You pass the native hospital. 'Are the doctors good?' 'In our country,' the Arab gravely replies, in the tone of Solomon, 'we say that doctors are of no avail. If Allah wills that a man die, he will die. If not, he will recover.' All of which is profoundly true, so true, indeed, that is not worth saying. To the Arab, however, it seems the last word in human wisdom. ... They have relapsed — all except those who are educated according to Western methods — into pre-scientific fatalism, with its attendant incuriosity and apathy." Islam deprives Muslims of their freedom. That is a shame, because free people are capable of great things, as history has shown. The Arab, Turkish, Iranian, Indian, Indonesian peoples have tremendous potential. It they were not captives of Islam, if they could liberate themselves from the yoke of Islam, if they would cease to take Muhammad as a role model and if they got rid of the evil Koran, they would be able to achieve great things which would benefit not only them but the entire world. As a Dutch, a European and a Western politician, my responsibility is primarily to the Dutch people, to the Europeans and the West. However, since the liberation of the Muslims from Islam, will benefit all of us, I wholeheartedly support Muslims who love freedom. My message to them is clear: "Fatalism is no option; 'Inch' Allah' is a curse; Submission is a disgrace. Free yourselves. It is up to you. Geert Wilders |
|
FROM BERLIN TO JERUSALEM
Posted by Chuck Brooks, July 20, 2010. |
|
This was written by Clifford May and it is archived at
Clifford D. May is the president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and the Chairman of the Policy Committee department within the Committee on the Present Danger. He works as a columnist, with his writings appearing in National Review Online and in The American Spectator. |
|
Last month, Sheikh Muhammad Hussein, the mufti of Jerusalem, called on Palestinians to defend the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which he said was "threatened by the plans of the enemies of God," by which he meant Israelis. It should go without saying that this is a lie. Israel poses no threat to Al-Aqsa, now or ever. On the contrary, Israelis have always recognized and respected Islamic sovereignty over Islamic religious sites within Israel — despite the fact that Jewish holy places have been desecrated by Palestinians, Jordanians, and others. The notion that the Israelis would raze Al-Aqsa to build a temple on its ruins — as the mufti has also claimed — is a ludicrous slander. What should not go without saying is how serious it is that such an allegation has been leveled by Jerusalem's senior Islamic religious authority. Under sharia, Islamic law, to be an "enemy of God" is to be the worst sort of criminal. Just a few weeks ago in Iran, five people were declared mohareb (enemies of God) — and then hanged. Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, must know all this. Yet he says nothing about it. Nor do most Western diplomats, politicians, and journalists. Also overlooked is the historical context. In the 1930s, the mufti of Jerusalem was Haj Amin el-Husseini. He, too, despised Jews — there was not yet a state of Israel to despise. After participating in a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq in 1941, Husseini moved to Berlin. There he became Hitler's ally, the "most important public face and voice of Nazi Germany's Arabic-language propaganda," in the words of historian Jeffrey Herf, who adds: "Husseini was a key figure in finding common ideological ground between National Socialism, on the one hand, and the doctrines of Arab nationalism and militant Islam, on the other." Herf's groundbreaking study, Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World, draws on archival resources not previously mined to explore the extent and significance of this collaboration. His nuanced conclusion: "Nazi Germany's Arabic-language propaganda was neither an imposition of a set of hatreds previously unknown to the traditions of Islam nor a matter of simply lighting the match to long-standing but suppressed anti-Jewish hatreds." Rather, the Nazis and their Arab partners drew on and emphasized "the most despicable and hate-filled aspects of the cultures of Europe and of Islam." They also added this audacious twist: They claimed they were the ones under attack. Their purpose, they insisted, was merely to protect themselves from a malevolent conspiracy. Over and over again, Nazi diplomats and their allies drove the message that Churchill had started the war against Germany "to expand British power," and that Roosevelt was behind Churchill "as the exponent of world Jewry." Herf elaborates: "In Europe, the Nazis presented their policy of 'extermination' and 'annihilating' the Jews as a desperate and justified act of self-defense. In their propaganda directed at the Middle East, they urged Arabs and Muslims to take matters into their own hands and 'kill the Jews' before the Jews were able to kill them. In both its European and Middle Eastern dimensions, the propaganda rested on the identical logic of paranoia and projection." And here we are, more than a half century later, with the current mufti of Jerusalem fabricating crimes against Muslims for which Jews deserve to be put to death. Meanwhile, Hamas leaders openly declare their intention to annihilate Israel and exterminate Jews — claiming they, too, are acting in self-defense, and calling themselves a "resistance" movement. The number of people who appear to be buying these fictions is not insignificant. Few scholars have examined the links between Nazi and Islamist ideas in the 20th century. Few journalists are examining their venomous legacy in the present era. Herf, obviously, is an exception — as is author and social critic Paul Berman, who recently observed that a taboo has developed: Most intellectuals determinedly ignore the fact that "Nazi inspirations have visibly taken root among present-day Islamists, notably in regard to the demonic nature of Jewish conspiracies and the virtues of genocide." This means, Berman added, that "the Islamist preachers and ideologues have succeeded in imposing on the rest of us their own categories of analysis." That amounts to a victory for them and, of course, a defeat for us. Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com |
|
SYRIA BANS NIQAB; ARABS SAY HUMANITARIAN GOODS DEFECTIVE; TURKEY-CYPRUS, VS ISRAEL-GAZA
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 19, 2010. |
|
SYRIA BANS NIQAB Syria has just banned the face-covering veil, niqab, for students and teachers in public and private university's. The government justified this as protecting the country's secular identity. As in some European countries, the government of Syria considers the full veil destabilizing. Head scarves still are permitted (Wall St. J., 7/20/10, A13). Syria's dynasty, drawn from the Alawite sect, has had an on again, off again conflict with the Moslem Brotherhood. Clothing can be used to conceal identity, repress identity, and isolating non-followers who than can be intimidated. TURKEYARRESTS AL QAIDA MEMBERS Turkey has arrested 29 suspected members of al-Qaida, in several Turkish cities. In 2003, an al-Qaida cell in Turkey committed two suicide bombings that killed 63 people. The targets were a synagogue, a British bank, and the British consulate. Seven people were jailed for life, for those crimes (IMRA, 7/21/10). http://www.imra.org.il/
ARABS ALLEGE HUMANITARIAN GOODS DEFECTIVE The al-Qassam website states that al-Jazeera reports that 70% of
the medical supplies donated in a humanitarian gesture to the people
of Gaza have expired. They now do more harm than good.
Some of the clothing donated are "graves clothes." The report quotes Munir al-Bursh, who manages the file of contributions in the
Ministry of Health (IMRA, 7/21/10). http://www.imra.org.il/
UN SEMINAR ON MEDIA IN MIDEAST "PEACE PROCESS" Reporting from New York, Petra, the Jordanian News Agency, http://petra.gov.jo/Artical.aspx?Lng=1&Section=1&Artical=209350 described a UN seminar to take place in Lisbon on July 22 and 23 on the role of the media in advancing the "peace process." Attending will be "current and former policy-makers, government officials, diplomats, civil society organizations, members of parliament, academics, and journalists." The reported purpose of the seminar is "enhancing dialogue and understanding between Israelis and Palestinians as well as sensitizing public opinion to the Palestinian cause and the peace process." The panels will consider the roles, in making peace, of the Israeli and Palestinian Arab mayors, women, and new and traditional media in reducing tensions and encouraging peace.
ISRAEL LEADS 86 COUNTRIES TO SIGN ON AGAINST ANTISEMITISM Israel presided over the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding by 86 other countries, members of the ITF (Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance, and Research) and the ODIHR (Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights). Israeli Deputy Foreign Min. Danny Ayalon remarked on "...elements that deny the Holocaust and are preparing the next one. We must preserve the memory of the Holocaust so that similar horrors and hatred will never be repeated and the world will become a safer place." (Arutz-7, 7/22/10). http://www.israelnationalnews.com/
ISRAEL APARTHEID LIKE SOUTH AFRICA? In apartheid South Africa, the black and "colored" majority were kept apart from whites in most aspects of life, including hospitals, ambulances, sports, movies, swimming pools, park benches. White dominance was the law. Blacks had to carry passbooks. Violations led to deportation to Bantustans. Many types of work were barred to non-whites [or were paid less]. Miscegenation was a crime. Whites got a paid education, blacks were restricted. Blacks were not allowed alcohol. Those practices do not apply in Israel. The large Arab minority have equal rights, as stated in Israel's Declaration of Independence. Israeli Arabs have 11 deputies, of whom three have been Deputy Speaker of Knesset. Arab diplomats represent Israel in a number of foreign countries. Arabs study in all Israeli universities [including the one built in Judea-Samaria by "settlers"]. All Israeli children are entitled to free public education, regardless of color or religion. Israel has granted residency rights to immigrants from all over, without having to convert. Israel brought in 70,000 Ethiopian Jews, blacks, who have been integrating. One difference is that Jews are drafted, Arabs are not, but may volunteer, as a few do. Like many countries, including the U.S., Israel has a security fence. The U.S. fence keeps out mostly aspirants for jobs. Critics misleadingly call Israel's fence an apartheid fence. It is not. It serves to bar terrorists who, in the past, succeeded in murdering thousands of Israelis and crippling thousands more. To prevent that, the wall is worth its inconvenience to Arabs, whose collective conduct requires security measures. Israel is more tolerant than any of its neighbors that criticize it
(Flame ad in July Commentary).
IRAQI KURDS SMUGGLING OIL TO IRAN The oil trucks line up for days at the Kurdistan side of the border
with Iran, waiting to pass into Iran. Kurdish authorities issue them
the permits, contrary to U.S. sanctions and to Iraq's need for some of
the refined products. The proceeds are not included in Kurdistan's
official budget and are not shared with the central government of Iraq
(IMRA, 7/20/10 from Agence France Presse, which interviewed some
Iraqis).
ISRAEL TELLS UN OF CURBS ON WHITE PHOSPHORUS BOMBS White phosphorus bombs legally may be used on military targets. The U.S. used them in Iraq in 2004 for smokescreens, lighting up a battlefield, or driving troops out of bunkers. Israel used them smoke and light, in Gaza. Israel was criticized for it. Israel told the UN it will curb their
use in civilian areas harboring enemy troop installations. Israel
also will assign a humanitarian officer to combat missions
(Arutz-7, 7/21/10).
TIMES SQUARE BOMBER CLARIFIES HIS STRATEGY Feisal Shahzad, the Times Square, New York bomber, clarified his use of inferior explosives despite his having been trained in superior ones. He explained that the government was more alert to purchases of deadlier explosive materials than of milder, dual purpose ones. That is a plus for government protection against the worse bombs, and a minus for government protection against poorer bombs. Mr. Shahzad preferred a less detectable way to murder a smaller number of us New Yorkers, than a more detectable way to murder a greater number Devlin Barrett, Wall St. J., 7/20/10, A2). People had supposed Shahzad incompetent for using poorer explosives. The government cannot be everywhere, in our vast country, whose government permits the enemy to be anywhere. Shahzad was acting in the name of Islam. If asked, Muslims here might answer that he was not in the spirit and rules of Islam. They should not have to be asked. New York Muslims, who say they want to build a mega-mosque near Ground Zero to demonstrate assimilation into American, should be active in the media and Internet, disavowing terrorists who claim to represent them. The media would welcome this. Why do the Muslims not do it? Could it be due to the fact that radical Saudi Arabia subsidizes 80% of U.S. mosques? How many Muslim Americans are intimidated by their own co-religionists in what is supposed to be a free country? If many, we need police investigation. If few, why don't the ordinary congregants form patriotic organizations to show illegitimacy to the Shahzads? Muslim organizations presently rationalize terrorism and object only to defenses against it.
IRAN TELLS RUSSIA IT PROVED PEACEABLE NUCLEAR INTENT Expressing dismay over what he calls Russian President Medvedev's "misunderstanding" of Iran's nuclear program, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast said that Iran has proved its peaceful intent. He suggested that Russia turn to Israel's alleged nuclear arsenal that he alleged threatens the region. What was the proof? He said the proof is Iran's cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) (IMRA, 7/19/10). For a couple of decades, Iran has been devious and uncooperative with the IAEA. That is on the record. In response to some IAEA complaints, Iran has coughed up some information, like the uncooperative dog whose master presses its throat to make it cough up garbage grabbed from the sidewalk. Nor would ostensible cooperation prove anything. From The Islamic Bomb and Deadly Business, both written by Herb Krosney, the methods rogue states use for clandestine nuclear development and to deceive the IAEA can be seen to be similar to have been exposed also as Iran's methods. Standing in the swamp of deceit, Iran protests it is clean and dry. Believe Iran if you wish. But then you deceive yourself. How free of duplicity is Medvedev? He criticizes Iran's nuclear develop when it practically has the bomb, thanks partly to Russian tutelage in nuclear industry that Russia is still engaged in. Honest Russia, honoring contracts. It is enough to restore one's faith in human nature. Israel has had nuclear capability for some decades. It never used nuclear weapons and never exploited its capability to blackmail its enemies. Unlike Iran, which threatens to destroy Israel, it did not threaten to destroy its enemies. It reserved its capability as a deterrent. Now imagine Iran demonstrating that it has nuclear weapons. Can you also imagine Iran not using them and not exploiting them to blackmail other countries? To ask is to answer.
U.S. SINKS FUNDS INTO UN 'BLACK HOLE' Like light disappearing into a black hole, the U.S. wastes funds — they disappear into the UN treasury. A former UN undersecretary general of the Office of Internal Oversight Services reported, "There is no transparency [at the UN], there is a lack of accountability. I do not see any signs of reform in the Organization." Rep. Ros-Lehtinen adds, "The stew of corruption, mismanagement, and negligence long-plaguing the UN has reached a boiling point. " She adds, the UN Has abandoned the principles of its Charter, come under strong influence by rogue states, condones enemies of freedom and human rights, neglects international security, and is biased against Israel. The congresswoman suggests that the U.S. withhold UN dues until the UN reforms. She has introduced the UN Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act, (HR 557) which would condition resumption of dues on sweeping UN reform. Her bill has 100 co-sponsors (Israel Resource Review, 7/20/10).
EGYPT'S PRESIDENT ILL, COUNTRY'S FUTURE UNCERTAIN Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak, age 82, is reported by intelligence sources to be afflicted with terminal cancer, leaving the future of Egypt uncertain. The supposed array of successors include his son, who is known for economic reform, Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, or former IAEA head Mohammed ElBaradei? One question is whether the non-aggression pact with Israel would be retained by his successor Egypt had denied the rumors of the illness. The President appeared well at his meetings, thanks to temporary medical effects (Arutz-7, 7/20/10). Will Mubarak make some dramatic move in his last year or two? Will he
abdicate in favor of a successor? Will the Moslem Brotherhood gain
power? If they do, they would inherit a first class military paid for
largely with $30 billion of U.S. taxes.
TURKEY AND CYPRUS, VERSUS ISRAEL AND GAZA After Turkey called Gaza Israel's "open air jail," Daniel Pipes compared Israel treatment of Gaza with Turkey's treatment of Cyprus. 1. When Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974, it used napalm. Israeli troops in Gaza used only conventional weapons, and produced few civilian casualties. [Total Arab casualties were about 1,400, of whom 400 were civilians, but since Hamas illegally fought among civilians, that Hamas war crime resulted in most of the civilian casualties, for which Hamas is legally responsible. 2. Turkey forced most of the Greeks out of the 37% of Cyprus that it occupied. Israel did not force Arabs out of any part of Gaza. 3. Turkey brought in 160,000 citizens of Turkey to settle on formerly Greek-owned property, more than doubling the Turkish population on the island. Israel previously had removed its own, 9,000 citizens from Gaza. [Nor had those Israeli citizens displaced Arabs when they acquired the land they lived on. As heir to the Mandate, which recognized the historical Jewish connection to Palestine, and which recognized the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute their homeland there, and since Gaza is an unallocated part of the Mandate and not part of a Palestinian Arab sovereignty, Israel has a better legal claim to Gaza than do the Palestinian Arabs.] 4. Bülent Akarcal?, a senior Turkey politician, said "Northern Cyprus is governed like a province of Turkey." Hamas, an enemy of Israel, runs Gaza. 5. Turkey pretends that the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which it established, is autonomous. Gazans have real autonomy. 6. Both Cyprus and Gaza have separation fences. Israel's fence keeps Arab terrorists from easy access to the State of Israel. Cyprus' fence keeps apart the two groups within what had been a single country. [This point may not take into account that when Archbishop Makarios was ruler, he moved toward "enosis," or union with Greece. That made Turkey worry what would happen to the rights of Turkish Cypriots.] Northern Cyprus, occupied territory, is more of an open air jail than is Gaza (Daniel Pipes, The Washington Times, 7/20/10). The people of Gaza suffer from Hamas dictatorship, terrorism by non-Hamas radicals, and Hamas' state of war. Mr. Pipes does not mean that Gaza is free, only that Israel is not the one oppressing it. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
THE DANGEROUS JEREMIAH SYNDROME
Posted by Gerald M. Steinberg, July 19, 2010. |
|
Long after the age of prophecy has ended, it is difficult to distinguish between those who have something serious to say and the many false prophets in our midst. In the final days of the First Temple, with the Babylonian army nearing the city walls, the prophet Jeremiah warned Jerusalemites of destruction and exile if they did not change their ways. The prophet was ridiculed and pursued, with catastrophic results. Since then, the Jewish people have been plagued by a continuous stream of imitations — self-proclaimed Jeremiahs warning of gloom and doom, but without the prophetic insight or divine license. With the creation of Israel and the challenges faced by the restored Jewish state, the number of modern day Jeremiahs has grown exponentially. Artists, professors, columnists, bloggers, NGO officials and politicians have assumed the role and adopted the rhetoric, if not the substance, of morality. Indeed, the prophecy of doom has become a major industry. But a great deal of caution needs to be exercised in drawing analogies between our times and the events from 24 centuries ago, when the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem, destroyed the Temple and exiled the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. Now, long after the age of prophecy has ended, it is difficult to distinguish between those who have something serious to say and the many false prophets in our midst. Self-appointed and self-promoting messengers come from the fringes of the political, religious, and social spectrum — Left and Right, ultra-religious and fundamentalist-secular — and seek to impose their private views and psychoses. They are usually unable to gain support through the electoral system, and thus hostile to democracy, but have access to large amounts of foreign money which is used to impose their agendas. This is far from Jeremiah's model. A close reading of the biblical text shows that the original Jeremiah clearly did not want the job (like his professional colleague Jonah), and frequently pleaded to be released from this extremely unpleasant task. In contrast, modern self-appointed prophets have huge egos. From within the country and the from the Diaspora, they desperately seek the attention accompanying warnings of the imminent demise of Israel or the disappearance of the Jewish people. These are not people who dislike the limelight and argue with God to avert the forthcoming punishment. In recent years, the Jeremiah industry has flourished by claiming moral infractions by the IDF in defending the country from terror attacks. Otherwise invisible individuals (including failed politicians) have gained a huge amount of attention and funding from those eager to spread allegations of Israeli abuses, regardless of whether or not they are backed by serious evidence. Many claim, like Jeremiah, to "love Israel" and to possess "the truth." Furthermore, Jeremiah delivered his rebukes from Jerusalem, as a Jew, facing the people whom he sought to influence, rather than from a distant and safe observation point, like Babylonia. In contrast, many of today's Jewish "prophets," such as Jeremy Ben-Ami (J Street), Daniel Sokatch (New Israel Fund) and intellectuals Tony Judt, Peter Beinart and Naomi Klein, promote simple solutions for the challenges facing Israelis, while living in New York, Washington, Toronto and London. Those self-proclaimed prophets who maintain an Israeli address focus most of their attention on, and receive the money that gives them influence from, these distant power centers. Other Israel-focused gloom-mongers greatly exaggerate the political and military threats, warning that any sign of flexibility or closing down of outposts will bring instant destruction. For some Jeremiahs on the Right, the 2005 Gaza withdrawal, and the more recent settlement freeze designed to restart talks with the Palestinians, are portrayed as the equivalent to the destruction of the Temple and exile. Iran is also a popular topic for the prophets of imminent disaster. While the dangers are real, the painters of these black scenarios understate Israel's power and resilience. What is needed in response to such threats is a careful assessment of the situation and best options, and not obsessive panic pumped up by headline writers and bloggers with little understanding of the details. Turning inward, we have the constant warnings that the Jewish people are on the verge of disappearance due to religious fanaticism, on one side of the scale, or religious pluralism and ignorance of the sources on the other. Jews have survived and evolved under adverse conditions for more than 4,000 years, and predications of the end of Jewish history are also exaggerated. None of this should be confused with a call for complacency. The Jewish people have suffered a number of massive tragedies after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and exile, including the expulsion from Spain and the Nazi Holocaust. Pollyanna-ish predictions of instant and painless peace agreements, or of Jewish continuity without education, are no better than nightmarish prophecy. Mr. Steinberg is executive director of NGO Monitor and chairman of the
Political Studies Department at Bar Ilan University. This article
appeared in the Jerusalem Post
|
|
NEIGHBOR'S BEAUTY
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, July 19, 2010. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at
freify@netvision.net.il and visit
|
|
LIVNI AND ABU ALLA TOGETHER: SHE CALLS FOR 2 STATES, BUT DOESN'T UTTER THOSE WORDS PUBLICLY EVEN ONCE
Posted by Israel Resource Review, July 19, 2010. |
|
This was written by Rhonda Spivak,
an attorney, writer, and member of Canadian & Israel
Bar Associations, now edits Winnipeg Jewish Review
|
|
Fatah's Ahmed Qurai[Abu Allah], Former Palestinian Prime Minister, and Israeli Opposition Leader Tzipi Livni, former Foreign Minister in Jerusalem's King David Hotel. (Photo: Rhonda Spivak) JERUSALEM — Opposition leader Tzipi Livni, head of Israel's Kadima party, shared a podium in English with former Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei [Abu Alla] of Fatah at Jerusalem's King David Hotel on July 11th, 2010. This was the first time the two had met since they engaged in substantive talks on a weekly basis when Livni was Foreign Minister in Ehud Olmert's government after the Annapolis conference. Throughout her speech Livni repeatedly referred to the need for a "two state" solution and used the words "two states for two people" and similar phraseology, while Qurei, on the other hand, did not utter the words " two states" or "two state solution" even once. In addition Livni spoke of the need to "divide" the land that is between the Mediterranean sea and the Jordan River at several points in her remarks, but Qurei did not use similar terminology of "dividing" the land. 
Professor Tamar Herman of the Israel Democracy Institiute. Both Livni and Qurei were "insincere" in suggesting that the issue is one "leadership" not "public opinion." (Photo: Rhonda Spivak) Livni and Qurei's speeches were part of a conference titled "The Israeli-Palestinian Proximity Talks: Lessons from Past Negotiations," which was organized by Hebrew University's Harry S. Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace in conjunction with the German based Konrad Adenaur Stiftung group. While Qurei did refer to the Oslo Accords as "the most important historical breakthrough in the history of the conflict," and also refereed to his negotiations with Livni after Annapolis as "serious negotiations", once can not help but wonder why he chose not to utter the words "two-states" even once? Is it possible he did not do so, because on the Palestinian street, more people are talking about "a one state solution," or waiting to obtain all of 'historic Palestine', such that Fatah determined that was no point for it to waste any efforts on uttering "two states" when Livni is not even in power. Regarding the resumption of negotiations, Qurei did not soften the official Fatah stance. He said "I don't think it is possible for PA leadership to go to direct negotiations "without the stopping of settlements." He referred to Netanyahu, saying "you know that he continues the settlements," despite the apparent settlement freeze. Qurei also said that Netanyahu "is taking unilateral actions in Jerusalem", regarding home demolitions and other matters, such as construction of roads. "The Jerusalem situation is a time bomb," he said. Notwithstanding the rivalry between Hamas and Fatah, it is interesting to note that Qurei made an effort to support the rights of members of Hamas's legislative council, to remain in Jerusalem. (is that a sign that his radar is more attuned with Hamas than Israel? ) "No one can accept that Israel has released representatives of Hamas Legislative council [from prison since 2006] and then is making them leave Jerusalem," Qurei said. Qurei also said that he doesn't see any "signs of encouragement", and that "We [Palestinians] want a process to solve the problems, not a process to manage the problems." He also complained that Netanyahu had deviated from the course taken by the government in which Livni had served. "If there is no stable policy, there will be no process," he said. Qurei said that the lack of progress was not a "problem of public opinion" but a problem of leaders," such as "their tactics and personal motives"( although presumably he was directing those remarks at Netanyahu and other leading members of his coalition, and not PA President Abbas). Qurei ended his comments by saying that he personally believes that "people on both sides will support any just agreement that will be reached [emphasis added]." Here again rather than saying "two state solution," as Livni did throughout her speech, Qurei used the much more nebulous phrase, "just solution." Livni and Qurei shook hands after he finished his remarks. During her own talk, Livni mocked the Netanyahu government for not getting direct peace talks off the ground. She said the Annapolis talks, which took place while she was foreign minister, "didn't fail, didn't end, it was stopped" by elections. "Less than two years ago, we met at this hotel a few times a week," she said, referring to her meetings with Qurei. "The press wasn't here because it was not news. It was just the ongoing relations between the Israelis and Palestinians." Livni said of Qurei. "He was a tough negotiator if I may say. I was also I think a tough negotiator. Livni stressed that to make progress in the process, "It's not about public opinion. It's about decision making [by] leaders. I believe that the role of a leader is to make a change in the long run for their people." She said that negotiating requires "trust", that "the other side wants to end this conflict on the basis of two states." "Now there are no talks about how to end the conflict," she said Livni added that "I know" that an agreement providing for a two state solution "will be supported by the vast majority of Israelis, and "I hope" this will be supported by the vast majority of Palestinians [emphasis added]." Livni warned that 'time works against the vision of two states," and that it was not in Israel's interest to "wait until someone forces us," or "puts completely different maps before us." She rejected the notion that Israel "should wait for a better partner." " The idea of two-nation states represents the best interest of Israel. It's about our future and existence of Israel and of the Jewish people." Livni referred to the framework that she and Qurei had agreed on in their negotiations. "We decided we needed to engage on all core issues. We decided that negotiations should be discrete. We decided that nothing would be agreed on until everything was agreed on and we decided to negotiate on all issues simultaneously." Livni made it clear that even if an agreement were reached with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, the agreement would not be implemented with Hamas in power in Gaza.". "If we had an agreement, we won't give the keys to Hamas" But having a two-state solution is going to "force the Arab world to decide whether to support the agreement," and it will make "the Palestinians have to decide" what they want...So it's a "win, win situation." Livni warned that while Israel would have to make concessions for peace, the lack of peace would prove more costly. "The price of not having an agreement for Israel is higher than the price of having an agreement," she said. She ended her remarks by saying "This is the time of decisions." Both Livni and Qurei were ushered out of the room with no time given for questions from the audience of several hundred people. CRITICISM OF LIVNI AND QUREI After the two had left the room, Prof. Tamar Herman, Senior Fellow of the Israel Democracy Institute said that she felt both Livni and Qurei were being "insincere" when they said that the conflict "is not a problem of public opinion but one of leaders." She said that Livni herself had said that her talks with Qurei had to be "closed talks" without the public, because public opinion is a very important factor in the conflict. She noted the irony of coming to the room to say that this is an issue of leadership and downplaying public pinion, while at the same time both sides "spend fortunes on polling public opinion." She also made a rather stinging criticism of Livni, saying "I don't recall Mrs. Livni ever talking so much about the need to have two states when she was Foreign Minister." Walid Salem, a Palestinian, who is the Director of the Center for Democracy and Community Development in Jerusalem, who spoke after Livni, took issue with Livni's comments that even if an agreement with the PA were reached, it would not be implemented in Gaza with Hamas in power. He chided Livni for not going far enough in her positions. His view was that any agreement would have to be implemented immediately and that it was not acceptable to say "we are ready to have an agreement but we will postpone its implementation." He insisted that Hamas would have to be engaged in an agreement. He suggested "creating a parallel process" which would engage Hamas by having Israel and Hamas agree to some sort of "hudna."[ time limited cessation of violence], which "would be continuous and renewed." He also suggested using the Arab Peace Initiative as part of the process as a way of "pressuring Hamas to support the peace process." DON'T FORGET THAT HAMAS WON THE PALESTINIAN ELECTIONS IN 2006 NOT ONLY IN GAZA BUT THE WEST BANK One final point to remember when Livni spoke about "not giving keys to Hamas," is that in the January 25, 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, Hamas won over Fatah in both the West Bank and Gaza. There is therefore no reason to be confident that Hamas won't soon hold the "keys" for the West Bank, not just Gaza, after any agreement with Israel is signed. [The final results of the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections were that Hamas won the election, with 74 seats to the ruling Fatah's 45 seats. Of the Electoral Lists, Hamas received 44.45% and Fatah 41.43% and of the Electoral Districts, Hamas party candidates received 41.73% and Fatah party candidates received 36.96%. www.answers.com/topic/palestinian-legislative-election-2006)] And guess what? At the time Hamas beat Fatah in January 2006, the Palestinian Prime Minister was none other than Ahmed Qurei. One final point-The latest poll by the Palestine Center for Public Opinion shows that Hamas's popularity in the West Bank has increased in the last few weeks. [(http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=48722)].
Contact Israel Resource Review (Israel Behind the News) can be
contacted by email at newsletter@israelbehindthenews.com.
|
|
ISRAEL THE BEAUTIFUL: A STORM GATHERS
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, July 19, 2010. |
|
This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images. HOW I GOT THE SHOT: I've been asked many times how I manage to travel far and wide each week to capture a new photo from somewhere in Israel. The answer is obvious, isn't it? It takes only eight hours to drive from Eilat to Metulla! In truth, I have very little time to devote to landscape photography, so I often combine a shoot with other assignments, which do take me to some of Israel's far flung locales. This week's photo was shot early one Spring morning while driving from Jerusalem to an assignment near the Gaza Strip. Just before I reached Rehovot, a gap opened in the dark clouds and an eerie, other-worldly light spread out across the horizon. I wasn't drawn to the beauty of the moment, but I sensed something unusual and fleeting. Experience has taught me that these are the best opportunities to create photographs whose power derives from recording something in a way we rarely see it. I didn't have much time to scout the location, so I pulled off the road into a small Eucalyptus grove and drove to where the trees opened up to reveal the view seen in this shot. The dramatic sky sets the mood of the photo, so I allotted a full third of the image to the sky alone. The wheat stalks bending in the wind also give a hint of the inclement weather. And I like the way the blue-gray of the sky complements the new green growth of spring. Much of Israel looks just like this shot, but rarely is it clothed in such flattering dress. TECHNICAL DATA: Nikon D200, 18-70 mm zoom @ 18 mm, f18 at 1/8 sec.
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: BALANCING THE SCALES
Posted by Arlene Kushner, July 19, 2010. |
|
Tonight begins a time of fasting, and of mourning. This is primarily for the destruction of the two Temples in Jerusalem, but our tradition tells us this was also the day on which multiple other calamities have befallen us over the centuries, such as the Jewish expulsion from Spain. It is a time of introspection for the nation. Especially is this the case today, as we face threats and must examine our actions in several regards. Yes, we must be strong. Yes, we must make proper decisions with regard to our security and our rights. But we are taught that we must also look inward at our own behavior. Baseless hatred (sinat hinam) is said to have been the reason for the destruction of the Second Temple ~~~~~~~~~~ Perhaps of particular note here is the linkage of this day with the sin of the spies. The Torah tells us that Moshe sent 12 spies into Caanan, which had been given to the people by G-d, to check it out. Ten returned with a report that was dire, causing the people to be afraid to enter. The gift that G-d had given the people was defamed: there was no trust that G-d would keep us in the land, and no confidence in our ability to manage ("we were as grasshoppers"). Thus do I write about balancing the scales, which is what Rav Kook said we were obliged to do. Balancing the scales: Accepting and appreciating this land as the gift from G-d that it is. Books can be written — and undoubtedly have been written — on what this means. I ask that you contemplate this for yourselves. ~~~~~~~~~~ For a special video from Aish that addresses these issues and the lesson of Tisha B'Av:
~~~~~~~~~~ I would also like to share here a moving video called "Home Game." Five years ago, the Israeli citizens of Gush Katif were forcibly removed from their homes. This is a story of one of those communities — Netzer Hazani. The expulsion was planned for the day after Tisha B'Av. Three weeks earlier, the annual Gush Katif basketball tournament — in which the youth of the communities participated — was begun. The final game, traditionally scheduled for right after Tisha B'Av, was to take place the very day that the expulsion was to happen, in Netzer Hazani — with the community's kids competing for the championship. The game was not cancelled. These kids, with an incredible spirit of courage (defiance?) played amidst what was happening about them. See this film made by the kids. Remember what happened. And then vow — in the spirit of Tisha B'Av — that something like this should never happen again.
~~~~~~~~~~ Last night I attended a panel discussion, sponsored by The Legacy Heritage Fund, in conjunction with the Global Law Forum at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA), the Menachem Begin Heritage Center, and the South African Zionist Federation in Israel (Telfed). The subject was "Combating Israel's Delegitimization: Debunking the Apartheid Myth." The program began with a video clip designed to show us what we are up against: Azmi Bishara — former Israeli Member of Knesset who fled the country when accused of aiding Hezbollah during the war — charging Israel with apartheid. In the course of the program, it was noted more than once that Bishara was himself evidence for the ludicrousness of the charges he was leveling. In a genuine system of apartheid, he could never have been elected to the Knesset. ~~~~~~~~~~ Professor Gideon Shimoni — originally from South Africa, and former head of Hebrew University's Institute of Contemporary Judaism — then examined the true nature of apartheid, as it existed in South Africa. In doing so, he was able to clarify how different it was from anything that goes on here. The manifestations of apartheid within the society of South Africa existed for over 100 years, even though it was not institutionalized more formally by the National Party until 1948. The conflict that developed over this had nothing to do with nationalism. The issues were inclusion and sharing, and were predicated purely on race. A white minority manipulated the conditions of all non-whites, while refusing to negotiate any of the pertinent issues. More was involved than exclusion from democratic electoral rights of anyone who was not white: whites determined which schools non-whites could attend, and what hospitals would treat them. Non-whites were sometimes forced to move to specifically designated areas. ~~~~~~~~~~ Here in Israel, tensions are not racial at all, but ethnic — regarding peoplehood. And the basis of those tensions is a struggle between two national movements. The tension arises with Palestinian Arabs who are not seeking inclusion within our system. What they want is separation, via their own state. This in no way parallels what transpired in South Africa, and is emerging from an entirely different set of circumstances. What is more, Arabs who are Israelis have full entry into the system. It's not just with regard to democratic process: Arabs in this country are treated by the same hospitals that treat Jews. In fact, Arab doctors, who may have been trained in the same medical schools Jews attend, often practice in the same hospitals. This totally puts the lie to the charges that our system is race-based. There are semantic distortions involved in apartheid charges leveled against Israel. Apartheid becomes a code word, a generic pejorative label separated from context. ~~~~~~~~~~ Dr. Dore Gold — former Israeli Ambassador to the UN, and head of the JCPA — made different arguments. There are two parts to the apartheid charge, he noted. The first part involves a white minority that suppresses a non-white majority, but the second part of the charge involves colonialism. The white minority in South Africa was European (Afrikaners, who were originally Dutch or Huguenot) — occupiers enforcing their will upon the majority indigenous population. It is this that is the most serious charge made against Jews in Israel: We are said to be outsiders, occupiers, enforcing our will on the indigenous majority population. And it is this that must be most vociferously refuted. It is not remotely the truth, and carries with it serious implications. The Mandate for Palestine of 1922 recognized our pre-existing right to this land. Actually, since 1863, Jews have been the majority in Jerusalem. The rise of Israel is anti-colonial. This is part of the attempt to delegitimize Israel: it is representing Israel as alien here, without rights. ~~~~~~~~~~ DJ Schneeerweiss — originally from Australia, currently Coordinator of the anti-boycott strategy of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs — says he prefers to turn around what Dr. Gold referred to with regard to the delegitimization of Israel. He doesn't wish to do our detractors' work for them, and so refers to the assault on Israel's legitimacy. The assault, he said, is broad, as there are attacks on supporters of Israel, as well as on Israel. Words count and there is currently an attempt to brand us. This is not about facts, it's a PR barrage. They merely have to make the label stick, and they know what will follow. It's a case of the malevolent leading the ignorant. A variety of strategies are necessary: There is loss of context today, as Jewish history is less well known. We must educate, telling our story. There is an attempt to dismiss our humanity. Stories must be told that redress this, showing the human side of Israel. Explain to people how ostracizing Israel can effect their lives because of all the helpful scientific and medical innovations that come out of Israel. Expose the truth about those who oppose us, who are themselves anti-human rights. (Note: the nations making the claim of apartheid against are not exactly paragons of a modern, liberal society that support human rights.) Reclaim liberal language: Refer to the rainbow character of the Israeli people (i.e., make the point that we are not all white). Promote our peace credentials. Refute arguments, as appropriate. Engage via dialogue and argument. Using the "virus" analogy, we must inoculate society against these charges so that they don't become mainstream. We shouldn't delude ourselves that every instance of such charges can be eradicated. It is important not to over-react. Sometimes ignoring a charge is the best way to go, as making a fuss leads to more press for the "apartheid" accusations. We must stay our course and build our resources via speakers, writers, etc. We can win this! ~~~~~~~~~~ To those who are fasting: an easy and meaningful fast. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
ALL THE TROUBLES OF THE MIDDLE EAST, IN ONE LITTLE COUNTRY
Posted by Sarah Stern and Kyle Shideler, July 19, 2010. |
|
There is a country in the Middle East accused of a brutal decades-long occupation. A country where a blockade causes starvation among a civilian refugee population. A country which violently cracks down on those who oppose it, shooting into crowds of protestors, while it receives substantial aid money from the United States as an ally in the War on Terror even as it undermines our war efforts by pursuing its own agenda. We're talking about Yemen, of course. Who else did you think we meant? The country of Yemen on the southern coast of the Arabian Peninsula has long been a simmering pot of violence. One conflict is geographical, as much of largely secular southern Yemen (which was the independent Democratic People's Republic of Yemen from 1967 until 1990) claims to suffer from an unwanted occupation from their more theocratic and traditional northern counterparts. This long conflict between the North and South has long been a sort of proxy between various influences in the region, whose participants included at one time or another: The Egyptians, Jordanians, Saudis, British, and the Soviets. Another conflict is with the Iranian-backed Shiite Houthi rebels on the border of Saudi Arabia near the city of Sa'dah, stemming all the way from an ancient feud which goes all the way back to the rebellion of the Zaydi tribes in 1905. A third, and much newer conflict is with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), although some assert that the Yemeni government's stance on Al Qaeda is closer to cooperative then conflicting. In November of 2009, the government of Saudi Arabia, which is allied with Yemen against the Shiite rebels, placed a naval blockade along the coast of the Houthi-occupied Northern Yemen. The goal, to prevent the Iranians from resupplying their proxy fighters. As former Ambassador Dore Gold pointed out during the now infamous Mavi Marmara incident, there was no outcry against Saudi Arabia or Yemen for this action. Astoundingly, the purpose of the blockade, preventing Iranian arms from reaching the conflict, was identical to the purpose of the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza which receives harsh international criticism. In Southern Yemen, a land blockade meant to put pressure on separatists there has caused dislocation, and dwindling food and medical supplies. But unlike the Israeli checkpoints into Gaza, which permit around 15,000 tons of supplies to cross every week, there was no such humanitarianism on display in Yemen. In January of this year, the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees asserted that as many as a quarter of a million refugees have been dislocated in Yemen due to fighting. Yet unlike the Palestinians, which have a billion dollar a-year agency (UNWRA) devoted specifically for their needs, the Yemeni refugees were faced with cuts in food assistance, when donors could not be found. Those who did contribute, not surprisingly, were largely Western countries, including the United States and France, while neighboring Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia, have provided little or nothing. Police in Yemen have opened fire on Southern protestors, and conducted torture and the Yemeni military has shelled Southern homes with little provocation. American and British flags are often present at such demonstrations of secessionist protestors, although they are generally being waved in solidarity, not burned as they routinely are in Gaza and the West Bank. And while the world screamed in protest when Israeli bulldozers demolished Palestinian houses, either for lacking legal permits or for being the hiding places of smuggling tunnels, there was no similar outcry when the Saudis annihilated an entire village, including a mosque, in Northern Yemen during its intervention against the Houthi Rebels. Yet despite its ham-handed and bloody tactics, American assistance continues to flow to the Yemeni government. Jonathan Schanzer who testified before Congress on the subject wrote in the Washington Times, "Yemen's willingness... to confront the serious threat Al Qaeda poses to the nation's stability has been inconsistent in the past, but our recent intensive engagement appears to have had positive results." Schanzer goes on to point to the repeated steps by the Yemenis to undermine our war effort against Al Qaeda, including routinely releasing dangerous terrorists from prison. Part of the reason Yemen may be so ready to release wanted terrorists from its prisons, is that the government may use Al Qaeda terrorists as mercenaries in its fight against the Shiites, and as a tool in order to extort additional aid money from the West. From Jane Novak, writing at the Long War Journal: Musid Ali, Director of the Yemeni American Anti-Terrorism Center, in commenting for this article said the Yemeni regime is responsible for the recent attacks, a serious charge as several foreign tourists were killed. The attacks, he said, "are a result of the good relationship between the regime and al Qaeda." The purpose of the attacks is to "make the west in general and the US in particular believe that Yemen is an ally of the US against al-Qaeda, but what is clear to the Yemeni people is the strong relationship between al Qaeda and the regime." As such, the counterterror assistance provided by the US in terms of funding, training, and equipment has been used "only against the Yemen people." Indeed the Yemeni government itself is suspected of being riddled with Al Qaeda supporters, who pass information from the Yemeni government to AQAP, and who help facilitate jail breaks, and attacks. Yet the United States continues to provide military assistance, including training, arms and munitions to the Yemeni government, with no real clear assurances whether such assistance is helping further U.S national interests such as fighting Al Qaeda, or the Iranian backed insurgency, or whether it is being used to target southern political opposition, under the guise of fighting terror. The importance of Yemen in the global war on terror has escalated since American-born, Yemeni cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki fled there. Al-Awlaki was the confidante and spiritual mentor of many terrorist plotters, including three of the 9/11 hijackers, The Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan, Chrismas Day "underwear bomber," Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, as well as inspiration for Time Square failed bomber Faisal Shazhad. Yet incredibly $150 million in military aid does not even buy the United States the ability to extradite al-Awlaki from Yemen, in the event he should be captured. Yemeni authorities say instead that Awlaki will be tried in Yemen for terrorists' acts he may have committed there, even though Yemen's track record of keeping terrorists behind bars is abysmal at best, and conducting jihad against foreigners outside of Yemen is not even a crime, according to Yemeni law. This is not to say that regardless of the Yemeni government's actions, Yemen is not a crucial battleground in the war on terror, or that the United States should cease to be engaged here. On the contrary, the area is vital to both regional and American security. The region is vital for several reasons, as outlined by former EMET Speaker of the Truth, Middle East analyst Walid Phares. In this video lecture, Phares outlines the strategic interests at play for both Al Qaeda and Iran. From Yemen, Al Qaeda is pushing to acquire coastal territory which will enable it to link up with Al Qaeda affiliate Al-Shabaab in Somalia and cut off the Red Sea. It is also seeking a base of operations for movement into the crucial region of Saudi Arabia where Mecca and Medina, the two holiest sites in Islam are located. Similarly the Iranians seek to utilize the Houthi rebels to also control the Red Sea, linking up with Iranian naval bases in Eritrea and to help foment trouble among Shiite dominated Saudi provinces. Yemen provides a particularly interesting case study because it contains within itself, three of the primary conflicts which exist throughout the Middle East. One, the conflict between the expansionist revolutionary Shiites of Iran, and their proxies, against their Sunni Arab counterparts. Secondly, the conflict of traditional versus secular Arabs, in Yemen depicted geographically between North and South. Finally it depicts the conflict between Global Jihad and revolutionary Islamism, in the form of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in their efforts to infiltrate and overthrow the traditional governments of the region, especially Saudi Arabia. None of which, it is worth adding, have anything at all to do with Israel. Meanwhile, within Yemen, the government and its allies the Saudis engage in all the behaviors which Israel is accused of doing, but does not actually do. They have implemented a blockade, as Israel has (no one has complained about the Saudi blockade). They do not permit humanitarian supplies to reach the citizens of an area they are accused of occupying (while Israel does). The U.N actually downgrades its assistance to Yemeni victims (while Palestinians have an entire agency devoted to them). They wantonly destroy civilian homes (Israel practices tight controls, including the "knock on the door" policy, warning terrorists and their families to depart before even valid military targets are destroyed). Yemen receives economic and military hand outs even as it fails to provide measurable results for American National security (Israeli intelligence and military sharing has provided numerous advantages to the United States, including in the form of intelligence against terrorists, IED detection and disabling technology, and many others.) In this sense, Yemen shows us the double standard imposed by the world, which deems actions performed by Israel as bad, yet the same actions conducted by Arab states are deemed morally neutral, or at least, worthy of ignoring. In reality solving the three conflicts which make up Yemen's troubled history, would do more for regional, and indeed international security, than any number of peace agreements between the Palestinians and Israelis. Let us point out that far greater Yeminis have been killed over the many years of in the internecine conflicts between the Yeminis and themselves than have Palestinians or Israelis. Barak Salmoni, author of the Rand Corporation study Regime and Periphery in Northern Yemen: The Huthi Phenomenon, calls Yemen, "longest running conflict in the Middle East with 25,000 to 50,000 casualties." Yet, for far too many people, Middle East Peace remains synonymous with the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel. It is essential that people understand the real root causes of Middle East conflict, as demonstrated in a single country, Yemen. Many of these root causes point to something endemic within the sociological norms and culture of Arabic society. Sarah Stern founded Emet (Endowment for Middle East Truth). |
|
A HOLY WAR — PART I: THE AL AQSA MOSQUE ON TEMPLE MOUNT
Posted by Ari Bussel, July 19, 2010. |
|
A Wall, that is all that separates two titans from a clash of civilizations, a 7th Century Islam against a 21st Century Judaism. Two monotheistic religions, both claiming to be derived from the same Patriarch Abraham and to be able to co-exist, find themselves in modern times on a deadly collision course. All that contains the conflict is a wall, the Western Wall of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Many significant events took place at the top of this mountain: Tradition says that the world was created here. Later, Abraham brought his son and was willing to sacrifice him as an offering to the God of the Hebrews. The Holy of Holies, the center of the First and Second Temples, stood here. Today, Muslims control access to the area, Jews are forbidden to pray — even silently — and a person whose lips move in silent prayer will be arrested. This said, most Jewish people refrain from ascending to the area to avoid possible sacrilegious contamination because of a lack of absolute certainty over the location of the Holy of Holies. Millions of Jews and members of other religions visit the Western Wall every year. As it ascends 19 meters (62') into the air, it showcases 28 stones, starting with larger stones and ending with smaller ones. The different sizes are indicative of the eras when they were placed. It is customary to write a wish on a piece of paper and place it within the stones, and people of all religions do so. There is another wish others attempt to deposit in this holy place. They are not as careful to place their "note" in between the stones. On the contrary, they amass a large quantity of stones of various sizes and throw them over the top of the Western Wall onto the many people praying in the plaza below. Their intent is to maim and kill, cause a provocation, do evil. They are often instigated by the religious elders to incite hatred of the Jews and Israel. Their wish is singular: to see the destruction of the Jewish State and the completion of the Final Solution, the extermination of the Jewish People from earth. They are unabashed in words and actions, yet they enjoy full autonomy from the Israeli authorities. Thus, several years ago, they excavated 300 — 400 truckloads of archeological artifacts from beneath the Temple Mount and dumped it unceremoniously in a ravine, like garbage. Why would anyone do that? This destruction is designed to remove any connection between the Jews and their holy place, between the Jews and their history, and between the Jews and their capital. This is just another step in the delegitimization of the Jewish state. History erased, evidence removed, as they intend to do with Israel and wipe her off the map of the nations. Imagine if anyone were to do such damage in Mecca or Medina. Actually, there is no need to imagine, as no one would remain alive. In Israel, it seems, everything is permitted. Today, one must think very carefully before drawing a caricature of the Muslim prophet or satirizing him on television. It was less than five years ago Danish cartoons caused a worldwide upheaval, well planned and even better executed, and early this year the South Park creators had to fear for their lives. The Muslims have zero tolerance for other religions, and extend zero courtesy to anyone having expectations similar to their own. It is their "right" and "duty," and if you disagree, a Fatwa religious edict will be pronounced on your life to teach you and others a lesson. By extension, Israel's mere existence, not to mention her enemies' accusations of colonialist ambitions, occupation zeal and atrocities and lack of respect to other religions necessitate action. The Muslim Hadif, teaches the Muslims the very method: "Muslim, here is a Jew behind me; come and kill him." "Muslim! There is a Jew behind me; kill him!" 
On the Temple Mount today, there are two identifiable structures — the Dome of the Rock, a golden dome recognizable around the world, built in 691AD. To the south a smaller, much less impressive and definitely less recognizable dome, the Al Aqsa (the "end" or "edge") Mosque, considered the third holiest place for Islam. Muhammad is said to have arrived on a horse to this very "end" or "edge," prayed and ascended to heaven. So holy is the Al Aqsa Mosque that the keepers of the Holy Sites have not visited it even once, definitely not for lack of permission Israel would have been only too glad to extend. Jordan and Saudi Arabia did contribute some fifteen million dollars back in 1994 to redo the outer gold covering. Calls to protect the Al Aqsa Mosque are a wonderful catalyst. Rumors and innuendoes spread like fire in the Muslim world, and when the Zionist Jews are blamed for threatening the Al Aqsa Mosque, nothing else is necessary. Riots are orchestrated and people willingly give their lives for the dream of defeating the Zionist Regime — from Indonesia to Gaza, Egypt to Syria, Turkey to Iran. Exactly ten years ago, then Israeli Opposition Leader, General Arik Sharon, went to the Temple Mount. That presented the most "opportune time" to start the Second Intifada against Israel. In recent times, one hears more and more often that the Al Aqsa Mosque is in danger. Rather than contradicting these stories, the Muslim clergy helps spread them. Has Israel prepared for this eventuality that seems a self-fulfilling prophecy with each passing day? The sanctity of their holy place apparently allows them to use it as a storage location for stones and other methods of upheaval. One does not know what else has been amassed at the Temple Mount or what is being contemplated and prepared. Perhaps even toppling the Dome of the Rock and blaming the Jews? What is evident, though, is that tones of earth mixed with priceless and irreplaceable archeological artifacts have been removed. It cannot be ruled out that the Muslim clerics would bring about the collapse of part of the Dome or the Al Aqsa Mosque. Their hatred against Jews is so much greater than their love and appreciation of their religion, or is it the actual teachings of their religion that are the basis for this behavior? The situation is so fragile that it is compared to one sitting on a barrel of explosive powder playing with matches. 
A caricature in a Facebook group "We want Masjid e Aqsa (Al Aqsa Mosque got it all wrong: The sharks are contained inside, the Jewish Sovereign protecting the sanctity of all religions, pilgrims and visitors. The Israelis are the Coast Guard, there to protect and save. If it were not for Israel, the third holiest place for Islam may not be standing today. Muslims, as we see repeatedly in Iraq and elsewhere, do not care about their holy sites or the lives of other Muslims when it comes to furthering their agenda. What a world we live in!
Contact Ari Bussel at busselari@gmail.com
Photos of the Western Wall, Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa Mosque used by permission by Ron Peled, www.allaboutjerusalem.com
|
|
HONOR KILLINGS ON THE INCREASE?
Posted by Family Security Matters, July 19, 2010. |
|
The Calgary Herald recently reported on a trial that has come to a conclusion. Aset Magomadova had been accused of killing her 14-year old daughter Aminat. On February 26, 2007, Magomadova had strangled her daughter to death, using her hijab. Magomadova, a refugee from Chechnya, had admitted second degree murder, and on Thursday last week, she was given an astonishing sentence — a three year suspended jail term, during which Mrs. Magomadova would have to abide by terms of probation or return to court. Magomadova had argued that on the morning of the murder, Aminat (pictured) had threatened her with a knife and attacked her with a chair The mother claimed she was acting in self-defense. In her "self-defense" Magomadova had tied a headscarf around her daughter's neck and then pulled it for 150 seconds, until Aminat's body went limp. However, though a knife was found in the room, Aminat Magomadova's fingerprints were not on the alleged "weapon". Court of Queen's Bench Justice Sal LoVecchio rejected a plea of self-defense. He stated: "This was a family in crisis with events spiralling out of control. It cannot be reduced to simply a case of mom choosing to kill her daughter as a form of discipline because she misbehaved. Quite simply, the events of that morning cannot be seen as a single isolated event." On the morning of the murder, Aminat was due to go to court for assaulting a teacher, and had refused to go. The circumstances of Magomadova's life are bizarre. She has only two children, Aminat and a younger brother who suffers from a disease that will waste away his body and eventually kill him. There is no father, as he was killed in a bomb blast, and Aset Magomadova has only part of one foot left after a bomb attack. She herself had been imprisoned for several months, suspected by Russian authorities of being a terrorist. The circumstances of the case have been heard by a judge. The prosecutor thought that the mother should receive a 12-year jail term, and Mrs. Magomadova (pictured above) will have to undergo grief, anger and bereavement counseling as part of her probation. The case is bizarre, and the mother obviously lied about the self-defense issues. This particular case does not appear to be an honor killing, but it does mirror some other cases of honor violence, where the life of a girl or young woman is seen to be worth less than that of a boy. In Chechnya, where the Magomadova family had lived before arriving in Canada, the culture places little value upon the life of a girl. In February last year, according to Russsia's St Petersburg Times, the Putin-sponsored leader of the region defended honor killings. The Chechen president, Ramzan Kadyrov, was speaking in Grozny, the capital, after seven young women had been found shot through the head. Kadyrov stated that the women had "loose morals" and for that they had deserved to die at the hands of their male relatives. He argued that women were the property of their husbands. He is imposing Islamic customs such as polygamy, and most Chechen women are now expected to wear Islamic headscarfs. Human rights activists estimate that every year, dozens of women are killed in Chechnya. Gistam Sakayeva, a women's rights activist in the region, said: "What the president says is law. Because the president said this, many will try to gain his favor by killing someone, even if there is no reason." Kadyrov suggested that the women were going to be leaving the country to work as prostitutes, which is why they were killed. As in so many cases of "honor killings", there is enough evidence to suggest that some, if not all, of these the Chechen women were innocent. Other countries Honor killings do happen with remarkable frequency in traditional Muslim communities, even though Muslims always blame such incidents upon local "culture" and deny that Islam has any relation to the killings. In Palestinian communities, such killings have been steadily on the increase. And the murders do not always involve male relatives killing women who were thought to have "transgressed." On January 27, 2002, a Palestinian woman, Amira Abu Hanhan Qaoud, murdered her daughter Rofayada. First she tried to get her daughter Rofayda to slash her own wrists, but the girl refused. Then she wrapped a plastic bag around her daughter's head, and slashed her wrists. She then clubbed her daughter's head with a stick, killing her. Rofayda's crime had been to have got pregnant. She had become pregnant because her two older brothers had raped her in their shared bedroom in Ramle. Amira Abu Hannan Qaoud made no attempt to kill her sons. Only the girl, an innocent victim of rape, was seen to merit punishment. In 2006, again in Ramle, 26-year old Basel Abu-Dahal stabbed his 24-year old sister Miriam 29 times in broad daylight. Passers-by ignored the girl's screams, and allowed Abu-Dahel to kill his sister. Miriam's crime, according to Abu-Dahal at his trial, was connected with "the improper way" in which she had raised her daughter. In Jordan, legislation introduced in 1960 makes it easier to commit honor killings: Article 340 of the Jordanian Penal Code states that "he who discovers his wife or one of his female relatives committing adultery with another, and he kills, wounds or injures one or both of them, is exempt from any penalty". In 2005, one campaigner against the frequent honor killings in Jordan, Rana Husseini, said that almost 70 per cent of all the girls who die in honor killings are virgins. The same researcher/campaigner claimed in 2009 that there were about 25 honor killings annually in Jordan, and 5,000 around the world. Honor killings are common in Pakistan (where they are called Karo-kari) in Bangladesh, Jordan, Palestinian territories, in Turkey, particularly its southeastern region. Honor killings happen among groups who are not officially Muslim but who live in Muslim regions, such as the Yezidi and the Druze. Du'a Khalil Aswad was a 17-year old Yezidi (Yazidi) girl who was brutally kicked, beaten and stoned to death, her agonized last moments captured on a mobile phone camera. This event took place on April 7, 2007, in Bashika, northern Iraq. In the five years between 2002, when a law prohibiting honor killings was introduced in the region, and 2007, 40 honor killings were recorded Du'a Khalil Aswad was accused of being seen with a Sunni man, but her autopsy proved she had been a virgin. In March 2007, Doaa Fares, a finalist in a Miss Israel contest, had to withdraw from the beauty pageant. She was Druze, and two of her uncles, accompanied by two others from her village, threatened that they would kill her for bringing shame to her family. In 2006, a total of 17 women were killed in Palestinian territories in honor killings. If Rana Husseini's claim is true that globally 5,000 young women are killed in this manner, it would mean that 13 women die every day, somewhere in the world, on account of "honor". Phyllis Chester writing in the Spring 2009 edition of Middle East Forum, quoted a 2002 document (United Nations Population Fund, Chapter 3) in which the figure of 5,000 women being annually killed in honor killings. This document quotes a report by Asma Jahangir, who also heads the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. In 2000 Jahangir made a report for the UN Commission of Human Rights. On the order of clerics, an 18-year-old woman was flogged to death in Batsail, Bangladesh, for "immoral" behaviour, according to the report. In Egypt, a father paraded his daughter's severed head through the streets shouting, "I avenged my honour." Phyllis Chester wrote of the denial by Muslim "representatives" when confronted by unpleasant facts about the rising cases of honor killings in North America: In 2008, after Kandeela Sandal was murdered for honor by her father in Atlanta because she wanted a divorce, Ajay Nair, associate dean of multicultural affairs at Columbia University, told the media that "most South Asian communities in the United States" enjoy "wonderful" relationships within their families and said, "This isn't a rampant problem within South Asian communities. What is a problem, I think, is domestic violence, and that cuts across all communities." In October 2008, Mustafaa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas branch of the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), dismissed any Islamic connection to a prominent Dallas honor killing, labeled as such by the FBI, arguing, "As far as we're concerned, until the motive is proven in a court of law, this is [just] a homicide." He continued, "We [Muslims] don't have the market on jealous husbands ... or domestic violence ... This is not Islamic culture." The case labelled for the first time by the FBI as an American honor killing was that of sisters Sarah and Amina Said, who were apparently killed by their Egyptian-born father, His motives had apparently been that the two girls had acted in Western ways and had dated non-Muslims. Canada One of the first known honor killings in Canada occurred with a Sikh family. Sikhs's ancestral homeland is the Punjab area of India and Sikhism evolved as a fusion of Islam and Hinduism. In 2000, a woman who was said to be a prominent figure in Vancouver's Sikh community gave an order — via a cell phone — for her daughter, who at that time was in India, to be murdered. The girl, Jaswinder Kaur Sidhu, had her throat cut when her mother commanded it. Amin Muhammad is a psychiatrist at the Memorial University in Newfoundland, Canada, who has been researching the growing trend in Canada of honor killings. He related three cases: He warned: "You will see, 10 years down the road, this will not be very new for even a society like Canada. A special watch is warranted from a legal point of view." In March 2005, a man from Kitimat, B.C., a man was found guilty of the second-degree murder of his daughter. Rajinder Singh Atwal had killed his 17-year old daughter Amandeep in July 2003. Her "crime" had been to have a live-in relationship with a man called Todd McIsaac. She then agreed to holiday with her family and her father stabbed her 11 times. He told a hospital that she had committed suicide. In September 2006, Khatera Sadiqui and her fiancé, Feroz Mangal, were sitting together in a car parking lot in the Elmvale Acres Shopping Centre in Ottowa. They were shot. Khatera died from her wounds and Feroz Mangal was seriously injured. Khatera's brother, Hasibullah Sadiqi, was the prime suspect. Feroz died shortly after the attack. On May 30, 2009, Hasibullah Sadiqui was found guilty of the "honor killing" murder. In July 2009, three members of a Canadian Muslim family of Afghan origins were arrested. A car had submerged in the Rideau Canal in Kingston Ontario, drowning four people who were inside the vehicle. Those who died were three sisters aged 13, 17 and 19 and another woman, 52-year-old Rona Amir Mohammed. The family came from Montreal and had been on the return journey from a holiday at Niagara Falls. Both the parents and a brother of the three girls were subsequently charged with murder. The older woman in the car was the first wife of the girls' father. Mohammad Shafia, his wife Tooba, and their son Hamed were all charged. It was claimed that "the daughters were beaten regularly, either by him or his son Hamed, because their behaviour was a disgrace to him in his eyes." Dr. Shahrzad Mojab of the University of Toronto claimed that: "The fathers and the brothers claim the act happened out of passion or love for the daughter or the sister. They argue she had to be sacrificed.... I've seen letters written from daughters to fathers who know what will happen. They are filled with references to love and how much they loved each other." Other Canadian academics have tried to explain honor killings. As reported in Canada's National Post, Aysan Ms. Sev'er, a professor of sociology at University of Toronto Scarborough, tries to remove religion from the equation and place it all about "patriarchy". Most monotheistic religions are patriarchal, and Islam is the most patriarchal of all monotheistic religions, but Sev'er would rather not mention the"Islamic" aspect of Islamic patriarchy. She stated: "A few women are really sacrificed to terrorize all women, to push them into submission, where they are not in the position to defend themselves or even their daughters or sisters.... In Canada, we have been extremely culturally sensitive, and that's a good thing. But in this particular case, we may have pushed the pendulum a little to the other side, in the sense that there are cultural components in these types of crimes which we cannot ignore." Last week, Rona Ambrose, Canadian minister for women's affairs, warned members of the South Asian community in Mississauga, Toronto, that "honor killings" would not be tolerated in Canadian society. Ms. Ambrose made her announcement shortly after a Sikh man, Kamikar Singh Dhillon, was convicted of murdering his daughter-in-law Amandeep Khaur Dillon on January 1, 2009. The father-in-law had tried to inflict stab wounds on himself, and had killed Amandeep with multiple stab wounds to the young woman's face, head, throat and upper body. In June, the killer admitted that he had been worried that his daughter-in-law would leave his son. He alleged that Amandeep was maintaining an affair. Europe The reasons why Canada should have more recorded honor killings than the United States is probably as a result of a more "multicultural" approach to housing and community cohesion in Canada. Whereas American migrants are expected to integrate or at least aspire to the values and aims of the country at large, in Canada, ghetto communities are developing, particularly around Toronto and Montreal. These ghettoes are not dissimilar to those which now exist in most European countries. In Britain, honor killings happen in Turkish, Kurdish and other communities, but the vast majority of such cases seem to take place in Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities. The Pakistani communities have existed since the 1960s as countries apart from mainstream Britain, where there is no integration with people from outside of the community, the predominant spoken languages tend to be Urdu or Bangla, and there are no moves by government or local authorities to encourage assimilation or integration. The rates of honor killings happening in Britain are estimated to be as high as one a month. Pakistani and Bangladesh communities not only resist integration with the indigenous British communities, they prefer to involve their offspring in arranged marriages, involving potential spouses from "home" villages in the old country, often first cousins. As well as literally encouraging a rise in certain medical conditions due to inbreeding, these arranged marriages often involve compulsion. Multiculturalists downplay the significance of forced marriages, and expect all people to accept the notion of parents choosing their offspring's marriage partners. Forced marriages are sometimes hard to distinguish from arranged marriages, and non-compliance with a family's choice of marriage partner is known to have caused honor killings in Britain and other European countries. The London Times of July 24, 2006, stated:
America Next? Honor killings will continue to thrive in places like Italy, Sweden, France, Britain, Germany Turkey, Canada, etc, as these nations have a poor sense of their own national identity. Migrants are not truly expected to assimilate, and in such an environment, it becomes almost a tabu for authorities to enter ghetto communities and insist that vulnerable women are protected. Political correctness and multiculturalism are allowing such unassimilated ghetto communities to thrive, and tacitly allowing women to become victims within these patriarchal and backward communities. Yes — I used the word "backward," knowing how un-PC a term it is. However, it is an accurate term. When communities attempt to maintain rural village systems, traditions and values of an undeveloped country hundreds or more miles away, while living in large sprawling conurbations, the rural village attitudes will always collide with those of the larger urban environment. Within that larger environment lie temptations and expectations that would never exist in a rural community. America has some communities like Dearborn, Michigan, that are becoming Islamic ghettoes, and there are South Asian communities developing in most American cities. The key to preventing honor killings in America is to ignore multiculturalism altogether and insist that all migrants prove their commitment to integration. If a person would not let his daughter marry an American girl, then that person obviously has no respect for American values or American life, and should not be deemed fit to become a naturalized citizen. Until very recently, America held on tight to its own values and traditions. With its new elite of "progressives", there is a danger that multiculturalism — a process that has been discredited by its appalling and divisive examples in Europe and Canada — will prevail. And then, for a young girl growing up in any of the patriarchal and backwards ghettoes that multiculturalism creates — a girl who wants to live like other Americans, dress like other Americans, date like other Americans — she will find that her opportunities and her future will become increasingly bleak. Contact Family Security Matters (FSM) at info@ familysecuritymatters.org |
|
A TALE OF TWO PROFESSORS
Posted by Steven Plaut, July 19, 2010. |
|
Academic freedom continues to be destroyed by the tenured Left. Academic freedom today increasingly means that faculty members have the right to agree with radical leftists and Marxists but not the right to disagree with them. And criticism of radical leftist academics is never permitted. It is considered "McCarthyism." The absurdities surrounding the leftist take on academic freedom have never been so glaring as in a pair of events, involving two very different professors in Israel, both allegedly involved in "sexual insensitivity." Ben Gurion University in Israel has long been something of a public laughingstock. Outside its science and engineering departments, it is largely a parody of a real university. It hires and promotes large number of anti-Israel faculty extremists, in many cases people whose academic records consist of nothing more than churning out anti-Israel hate propaganda. The political science department there is without a doubt Israel's worst; it does not contain a single non-leftist and it fired the one non-leftist who had worked there on grounds of incorrect thinking. It and other departments in the humanities and social sciences at Ben Gurion University see their mission as indoctrinating students into Marxism and far-leftist hatred of Zionism. Ben Gurion University hosts Neve Gordon, the Israeli equivalent of Norman Finkelstein, best known for his campaign for a world boycott against Israel. Gordon has built an academic career upon denouncing Israel as a fascist, apartheid regime, engaged in state terror, a country whose existence Gordon wants ended. Gordon recently hosted a convicted Palestinian terrorist [1] in his own home for several months, to serve as a moral role model for Gordon's own children. The tenured extremism at Ben Gurion University [2] has long been defended by the university officials on grounds of "academic freedom." But that just made the recent firing of professor Yeruham Leavitt all the more outrageous. Leavitt is actually a retired professor who was retained by Ben Gurion University to teach an ethics course to students in the Clinical Pharmaceutical Department. Alas, Leavitt, was guilty [3] of political incorrectness, and was fired for that. The very same President of the University, Rivka Carmi, who defends having dozens of radical tenured traitors on her academic staff, defended the decision [4] to fire Leavitt because he had made "offensive" and "insensitive" statements. Just what was Leavitt's horrific crime? In the ethics class the subject of children being raised by homosexual couples came up. Leavitt expressed skepticism [5] as to whether such arrangements are healthy for the children. He also claimed in class that homosexuals who wish to do so can suppress or ignore their sexual urges, much like he himself does when he sees a pretty young coed. The university reacted in a statement, "The lecturer made a categorical comment on the homosexuality phenomenon. During his hearing, (Leavitt) did not apologize for his offensive comments and even repeated them. Ben-Gurion University sanctifies freedom of thought and expression, but the lecturer blatantly crossed the line." Leavitt actually favors airing different views in the classroom. He was quoted in the local press [6] as insisting he is in favor of pluralism and equality. "In my many lectures on medical bioethics I have always tried to instill pluralistic culture while stressing multiple opinions and making them heard in a respectable fashion," he said. The President of Ben Gurion University issued a public letter in which [4] she defended the firing of Leavitt, making it clear that politically incorrect comments will not be tolerated in Ben Gurion University, but treasonous anti-Israel and anti-Semitic pronouncements are protected speech and students will be tested on them. Even the far-leftist Israel Association for Civil Rights in Israel, which ordinarily does not favor freedom of speech for non-leftists, attacked the University for firing Leavitt. Leavitt was quoted in the press as saying, "My embarrassing dismissal from Ben-Gurion University constitutes a severe violation of basic rights, including the right to dignity, academic freedom and freedom of expression." Now one can agree or disagree with Leavitt's comments. Sexual psychologists seem to be divided over the matters he discussed. Even if one believes he is wrong, since when is being wrong a basis for firing faculty members? If it were, most of Ben Gurion University would be a ghost town. It should also be borne in mind that he was teaching an ethics course, where ethical debate and controversy are the focus of the class. Ben Gurion University's anti-democratic officials claimed that a student in Leavitt's class had felt offended by what he said about homosexuals. But Ben Gurion University has always refused to take action against any of its many far-leftist faculty members who routinely denounce Israeli soldiers as Nazis, who endorse terrorist attacks against Jews, who call for the extermination of Israel, and who dismiss Jews as moral inferiors. They do so even when many of the students in class are themselves reserves soldiers, and some are people who have lost fathers and brothers in Middle East wars. No one has ever thought that offending the feelings of these people should serve as grounds for dismissal of the tenured extremists. ****** For the second of our Tales, let us introduce Eyal Ben-Ari [7]. He is a far-leftist full professor of sociology at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, a department famous for employing far-leftist and Marxist anti-Israel radicals. He claims to know something [8] about the sociology of the military. He is an anti-Zionist extremist with a track record of turning out anti-Israel propaganda, such as claims that Israel is an ultra-militarist society [9]. Much of his propaganda is misrepresented as scholarly research [10]. Ben-Ari has also served as a consultant to the Israeli army over the role of women in the military. He is now famous for two things — his supervising a ludicrous thesis claiming that Jewish soldiers are racists because they do not rape Arab women, and for himself being arrested under suspicion of multiple counts of rape. From his role in that now famous "rape thesis," it was already known that Ben-Ari had goofy ideas about sexual (mis-) behavior. But it turns out that the ultra-feminist Israel-bashing professor of sociology practices what he preaches. In the summer of 2008 Ben-Ari was arrested after numerous complaints had been submitted to the police that he had raped his female graduate students. According to the leftist daily Haaretz [11], "Both professors and students Thursday described a reign of terror at Hebrew University's sociology department that kept female students from reporting his sexual harassment." Complaints had come from at least 10 women students. Ben-Ari was suspected of indecent acts and extorting sexual favors from students and doctoral candidates. He allegedly threatened their grades and funding if they refused to comply. One student published a blog of her being harassed, under the byline "A.-from the Sociology Department." Ben-Ari was accused of taking his female students on sexual trysts with his university research funds. He purchased for one of them a vibrator [12] and then submitted the bill for reimbursement to the Hebrew University's Shaine Center. He was not the first Hebrew University professor arrested for sexual misbehavior [13]. The head of Ben-Ari's own department admitted publicly that Ben-Ari was harassing female students. In a letter published on the Internet he confirmed in a letter that there exists a "reign of terror" in the department. "Neither academic freedom nor academics can exist in this environment," he wrote. Moreover, complaints about Ben-Ari had been brought to the attention of the university administrators years before Ben-Ari was arrested. The University officials had buried them and stonewalled, [14] refusing to take action until the police got involved, and even then circling their wagons to support Ben-Ari. Ben-Ari was the supervisor of what may be the most embarrassing piece of pseudo-research ever to emerge from an academic institution. Shortly before he himself was arrested for rape, one of Ben-Ari's MA students, Tal Nitzan, received a Hebrew University award for her "research" purporting to prove that the absence of cases of rapes of Arab women by Israeli Jewish soldiers [15] indicates that the Jewish soldiers are racists. The Hebrew University graduate student claimed [16]in her thesis that the Jews are racists and oppressors, people who do not even regard Arab women as worthy of being sexually abused. She and her "research" were awarded an honor for these impressive "discoveries" by the same Shaine Center, a Hebrew University sociology "research" center dominated by far leftists. Under Ben-Ari's supervision Nitzan claimed that abstaining from rape is just as inhumane and oppressive as "symptomatically raping" and in fact replaces it, because it just serves to reinforce the intolerance felt toward Arabs by Jewish soldiers. These racist soldiers think of Arabs as so inferior and horrid that they do not even feel a compulsion to rape them. While giving some shallow lip service to how the "question" of rape refusal is "very complex," Nitzan's own "answer" was quite simple and straightforward — it reflects Jewish racism against Arabs. Israel, she claimed, is so racist and anti-Arab that abstaining from rape is part and parcel of its determination to enforce rigid "lines of division." She asserted that individual soldiers who refuse to rape represent an intentional policy of oppression roughly similar to when governments order mass rape, because in both cases the "policy" serves to subordinate and dehumanize the oppressed victim population. The thesis drew its "scientific" conclusions from interviews with 25 reserve soldiers, ages 23-32, who served as combat troops in the "occupied territories" during the intifada. None of the comments by any of these soldiers supported or provided any confirmation, even the most indirect, to any of the lunatic "conclusions" reached by Nitzan. (I know, because I read the whole piece.) When the world media first discovered this "thesis," they had a field day. The Hebrew University was transformed overnight into a laughingstock, particularly when the President and the Rector of the University jointly issued an announcement defending [17]the student and dismissing those who expressed outrage over the contents of the thesis. Israeli feminists were strangely silent [18], no doubt to show their solidarity with the far-leftist Ben-Ari and Nitzan. The same ultra-feminists in Israel, who insisted that an (unmarried) cabinet minister be indicted because he gave a French kiss to a woman in his office, have had nothing to say about the behavior of this member of the Tenured Left. The police later closed the file on Ben-Ari and never indicted him. There are rumors that the Hebrew University pulled strings to prevent an indictment. Ben-Ari still teaches his wacky sexual political "ideas" to hapless students in the sociology department there, to the chagrin of the female students [19] who claim they were molested by him. Ben-Ari has not been dismissed for his "sexual insensitivity." Unlike Leavitt, Ben-Ari is a far leftist. Could that have anything to do with the difference in his treatment?
Footnotes [1] recently hosted a convicted Palestinian terrorist:
[2] tenured extremism at Ben Gurion University:
[3] Leavitt, was guilty:
[4] defended the decision:
[5] Leavitt expressed skepticism:
[6] He was quoted in the local press:
[7] Eyal Ben-Ari: http://sociology.huji.ac.il/ 2006/staff/ben-ari/ [8] claims to know something:
[9] ultra-militarist society:
[10] misrepresented as scholarly research:
[11] According to the leftist daily Haaretz:
[12] one of them a vibrator:
[13] arrested for sexual misbehavior: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1202742 150222&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter [14] officials had buried them and stonewalled,:
[15] to prove that the absence of cases of rapes of Arab women by
Israeli Jewish soldiers:
[16] graduate student claimed :
[17] jointly issued an announcement defending :
[18] feminists were strangely silent:
[19] to the chagrin of the female students:
Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist,
a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author
of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and
satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic
community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is
|
|
PARAMETERS FOR M.E. PEACE
Posted by Ted Belman, July 18, 2010. |
|
Yesterday, Abbas reformulated his terms for entering direct negotiations, namely Israel must agree to the idea of a third party guarding the borders of a future Palestinian state before direct peace talks can start and Israel must also agree in principle to a fair land swap that would compensate the Palestinians for West Bank land absorbed by Jewish settlements in any peace deal. He can say what he want, but what are the parameters based on past agreements? While many people argue that we know what the ultimate deal will look like, namely the creation of an independent, viable, contiguous, Palestinian state with the '67 borders with minor swaps, a divided Jerusalem and a just solution to the refugee problem. The truth is quite the opposite. The peace process began with UNSC Resolution 242 whose goal it was to achieve a "peaceful and accepted settlement.' Thus any settlement must be agreed upon and not imposed. The resolution required "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.' Thus not all territories must be withdrawn from. In fact Israel has already withdrawn from more than 90% of such territories by withdrawing from Sinai and Gaza. Little noticed is that this requirement requires no withdrawal from territories occupied in the '48 war of independence. This resolution also provided that such a settlement must include "termination of all claims or states of belligerency' and the recognition that "every State in the area' has the "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.' This is the basis for Israel demanding an end-of-conflict agreement. At the Rabat Conference in 1974, Jordan and all Arab countries recognized the PLO as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.' with respect to Judea and Samaria. (West Bank) Egypt signed such a peace treaty with Israel in 1980. Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994.. Pursuant to the Oslo Accords, Israel must now reach on agreement with the Palestinian Authority which replaced the PLO as the negotiating party. The Oslo Accords did not predetermine the disposition of Jerusalem, borders, Israel settlements and refugees other than to label them as final status issues to be negotiated. The Oslo Accords envisioned a settlement pursuant to the parameters of Res 242. In 2003, the Roadmap was accepted by the PA and by Israel albeit subject to 14 reservations. Chief among the changes to the peace parameters of Oslo was the insertion of the Saudi Plan later adopted as the Arab League Initiative. This plan was at odds with Resolution 242 in that it required the withdrawal from all occupied territories subject to minor swaps of land of equal value, the division of Jerusalem and a just settlement of the refugee problem pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 194 which provided "that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for property of those choosing not to return.' This resolution, having being passed by the General Assembly, is not binding. PM Sharon objected strenuously to the insertion of the Saudi Plan but Secretary Powell overcame his objections by ramming it down his throat arguing "the Roadmap is only a process'. Sharon had one more bite at the apple when he was negotiating with Pres Bush for a letter of commitment and principles in conjunction with the proposed disengagement from Gaza. Dore Gold of the JCPA commented on the significance of this letter.
Thus the Clinton Parameters were much in line with the Saudi Plan and the Bush letter flew in the face of both of these and resorted to Res 242 which provided the original parameters of Oslo. In June of last year Secretary Clinton disavowed the Bush letter saying it "did not become part of the official position of the United States government.' Israel begged to differ. When Obama was interviewed by Yonit Levi for Israel TV on July 7th, he said at 40 seconds of Part 2, "our view on settlements is consistent with all the previous administrations' and continued "that view was always voiced not in the spirit of trying to undermine Israel's security but to strengthen it'. He made it clear he was talking about the freeze which he called the "moratorium.' Keep in mind that there are two separate but inter-connected issues here, namely where Israel can build in the interim and what lands she is expected to cede in the final agreement. Bush's letter clearly referred to the parameters for final settlement but such parameters have implications for where he permitted Israel to build in the interim. Israel and the bush administration had agreed that Israel could build within the construction line of the settlements in Judea and Samaria and could build unabated in the settlement blocks. Obama is flat out wrong to say that his view on settlements is consistent with that of Bush.. It isn't. By demanding the freeze, Obama was against Israel building anywhere east of the green line. JPOST reported on July 5th, "according to proposal, Obama would publicly hint at acceptance of then-US president George W. Bush's 2004 letter to then prime minister Ariel Sharon, and Netanyahu would say that while settlement construction would continue inside the large settlement blocks, it would not be restarted outside of those areas. ' The Washington Times reported the next day, on the significance of the Bush letter and reported that Dan Shapiro, the White House National Security Council's senior director for the Middle East and North Africa, "declined to say whether the 2004 letter reflected the Obama administration's understanding of the parameters or borders of a final settlement to the conflict.' So this proposal is still out there. Pres Obama must accept the terms of the Bush letter for there to be any progress. Even then, there will be great debate on what blocs to be included. Negotiations will include whether Israel will cede Arab east Jerusalem, (where the Palestinians live) to the PA and whether it will allow a token return of refugees, both in line with Clinton. To my mind if Israel gets to retain more land and settlements it will be more flexible on accepting a token number of refugees. Thus all the issues are inter-related. In the interview above referred to Obama was asked if he was still demanding a freeze and he replied that he now only sought direct negotiations. Make of that what you will. Still to be debated are whether Israel will get defensible borders and whether Bush will be followed in placing Israel security needs above Palestinian sovereignty. The fact that the PA doesn't speak for Palestinians living in Gaza, is ignored. The fact that Hamas is dedicated to Israel's destruction is also ignored. The fact that the PA continues to incite contrary to the Roadmap is also ignored. Bottom line though is that all issues are to be negotiated and agreed upon. This requirement is in both Res 242 and The Roadmap. Failing agreement, which is likely, will Obama or the UN attempt to impose a plan, even though it is illegal to do so? Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. He now lives in Jerusalem. Contact him at tedbel@israpundit.com |
|
THE MEANING OF MOURNING FOR YERUSHALAIM
Posted by Paul Rotenberg, July 18, 2010. |
|
This was written by Moshe Eyal, Executive Director, Arzey Halevanon Pre-Military Torah Academy, POB 1060, Maale Efraim, ISRAEL 90638. |
|
Dear friend I have always found it hard to understand Chazal's words, "all those who mourn for Yerushalaim merit to see Yerushalaim in her rejoicing" ( Ta'anit 30: ). Chazal promise that we will rejoice with Yerushalaim, but despite this promise, for over two thousand years, Jews continue to mourn over the destruction of Yerushalaim and have not yet merited to share in her joy. We tend to interpret this verse as referring to the future or, in other words, if we have mourned properly, then at techiyat hametim, the resurrection, we will have the zechut of seeing the rejoicing of Yerushalaim. However, if we read carefully, we notice that Chazal use the present and not the future tense, and in light of this, it is hard to accept the time honored understanding that we are speaking of some time in the future. The following anecdote gave me a different perspective in understanding Chazal's words: Rabbi Chanan Porat (please daven that he have a rerfua shelema: Chanan ben Shlomit), the head of the "Orot" movement, was born in Kibbutz Kfar Etzion — one of the settlements in the Etzion bloc — and in the War of Independence in 1948 was among the children who, together with their mothers, were forced to leave their home. The men remained to protect the kibbutz and most of them were killed. After the war, every year on the date of the fall of Kfar Etzion, the mothers would gather the children and traveled to a point from where they could see from afar the lone tree that still stood amidst the ruins of the kibbutz, and recall their home that had been destroyed. Little children go along with their mothers. We can imagine that as the children grew older they may have argued, "Ima, enough. We were there already; I know what it looks like. Why do we have to go again?" The mothers were relentless. They continued to return, together with their children, year after year. With time the children grew up, most became soldiers. Chanan was one of the paratroopers who freed the Kotel in the Six Day War. Right after the war, Chanan and his fellow "children of Kfar Etzion" requested permission from Prime Minister Levi Eshkol to rebuild their home. After repeated entreaties, Eshkol gave in to their persistence, and said to them (in Yiddish) "shoin kinderlach", "all right kids, get going" and allowed them to rebuild Kfar Etzion. In late 1967, Kfar Etzion was the first Jewish settlement to be built over the Green Line. I would like to stress that Kfar Etzion was not the only settlement destroyed in the War of Independence. Atarot, formerly north of Yerushalaim, was rebuilt as "Bnai Atarot" (the sons of Atarot") close to Lod in the Ben Gurion airport area. Massuot Yitchak, another religious settlement destroyed in the Etzion bloc, was rebuilt near Petach Tikva. The only settlement rebuilt on its own land, by its own children, is Kfar Etzion. Who really rebuilt Kfar Etzion — the children or the mothers? The mothers, persistently, year after year, instilled in their children the memory, the awareness, of their home that had been destroyed. The children, for their part, took the very first opportunity available to realize their mothers' dream. If we were to personify Kfar Etzion, we could say that when the destroyed kibbutz saw the mothers and their children return year after year, it was happy, because it knew that its rebuilding would come, that it was only a matter of time. The same applies to Yerushalaim. When she sees her children all over the world mourning her destruction, she rejoices, for she knows that she will be rebuilt, that it is only a matter of time. When you and I work on projects connected with building the Jewish state in the Land of Israel, when we mourn the destruction of Yerushalaim, we are ensuring that Yerushalaim will be rebuilt, and at the very same time we merit to see her joy. May we continue to work together to strengthen the State of Israel and may we merit the realization of the pasuk: "rejoice for joy with her all who mourn for her" (Isaiah 66) |
|
LIMIT ISRAEL'S BOYCOTT FANS
Posted by Eli Pollack and Mordechai Kedar, July 18, 2010. |
|
For years now, Israeli academic institutions have been under attack by Israeli teaching staff members who travel the world and urge lecturer unions to boycott Israeli universities. Some of these Israeli professors go even further by encouraging economic bodies to withdraw their investments from Israel in general and from the universities in particular, boycott Israel and its academic institutions, and impose sanctions on them. These people justify their activity by arguing that academic freedom grants them the right to undermine the economic stability of the institutions they draw their salaries from, while the State — which pays their salaries — must continue doing so even though they incite against it and threaten its very existence. As academicians ourselves, we are in favor of academic freedom and have no problem in principle with a researcher who argues — in an academic convention or journal — that the State of Israel is an apartheid state, for example. After all, any decent convention or worthy journal would provide a proper platform for views that would easily refute such foolish claim while referring to highly significant differences between Israel and apartheid South Africa. The academic value of such claim would be the same as claiming that the earth is flat. If a lecturer makes such claim in class, academic decency obligates him to present opposing views, and if he does not do so he's supposed to be called to task by his superiors due to the intellectual shallowness he imparts to his students. Hence, the academic environment is capable of properly contending with such claim, as long as it maintains its decency and fairness, which are supposed to prevent other ethical deviations such as plagiarism or false accusations. The problem starts when the event where such foolish claims are uttered is not academic, but rather political in nature (for example, the "Israel apartheid Week.") It's even graver when an Israeli academician urges the pension fund of Finnish miners (for example) to withdraw its investments from Israel and from his university while boycotting them and imposing sanctions on them. This kind of activity is not academic, but rather, purely political. The moment an academician undertakes such acts he deviates from his field and operates as though he's a political man. In the political arena, there is no significance to academic freedom, just like academic freedom does not grant anyone the right to drive on the wrong side of the road or park illegally, even on campus. Rules needed urgently Freedom is not unlimited: Freedom of speech does not include the right to yell out "fire" in the theater for no reason, while freedom of occupation, which grants any carpenter the right to drill holes, does not allow him to drill a hole in a ship carrying other passengers. Similarly, academic freedom is limited to academic activity and related areas and does not apply to political activity. Academic freedom does not grant academicians the right to risk their colleagues' place of employment, and should such academicians believe their university deserves to be boycotted, they should be honest with themselves and start the boycott themselves by resigning and shunning their salary and the research budget they received. There is no reason that would require a State, just like any other organization, to fund and sponsor people who travel the world and call for boycotts and sanctions against it, as such people threaten the State's legitimacy and thereby its existence as well. An academician who exploits academic freedom for political activity necessarily pushes the institution he draws his salary from into a political position, even though he was not authorized by his employers and colleagues to do so. He therefore endangers their academic standing among global colleagues as well as their economic situation, as a decline in investments and donations as result of their actions would undermine the university's resources. Recently, 14 Tel Aviv University donors urged the education minister to intervene. These and other donors may withdraw their support should their public call remain unheeded. As academicians, we feel threatened by the non-academic political activity of some of our colleagues, who hence threaten our status in the global academic community, the institutions we're members of, Israeli academic in general, and the whole State of Israel. The education minister, who is in charge of university budgets, must urgently form a committee that would set ethical rules for non-academic activity in order to protect academic freedom against misuse, and to protect higher education institutions from economic and scientific collapse — this, as result of the reckless activity of people who turned themselves into politicians in an academic guise.
Dr. Mordechai Kedar and Professor Eli Pollak are members of Israel Academic Monitor
This appeared in Ynet News
|
|
ATHENS UNVEILS ITS HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL
Posted by Paul Rotenberg, July 18, 2010. |
|
The Holocaust memorial in Athens in the shape of a broken Star of David It has taken nearly 70 years, but tomorrow, as the sun sets over Athens, a monument to honour Greece's Holocaust victims will finally be unveiled. Athens is the last EU capital to commemorate those who perished at the hands of Nazi forces. "To get here has been difficult but now it is done the message is simple. We have not forgotten and we will not forget," said Benjamin Albalas, resident of the Jewish community in Athens. Greece lost more of its Jewish population in the Final Solution, proportionately, than almost any other country in Europe during the second world war. Around 65,000 men, women and children were dispatched to their deaths in Auschwitz between 1941 and 1944. An estimated 1,000 Athenian Jews were packed off to the concentration camp in April 1944 after thousands fled or went underground. Arriving there after a two-week train journey, they were met by Dr. Josef Mengele. "He selected 320 men and 328 women for his own research,'" writes the historian, Mark Mazower, in his book Inside Hitler's Greece. "The others were immediately gassed and burned in crematoria." What remains of the country's Jewish community today had campaigned long and hard for the memorial to be erected. The quest began in earnest last year when the municipality of Athens donated a prime piece of real estate, overlooking the ornate cemetery where Pericles delivered his famous funeral oration in honour of the Athenians killed during the Peloponnesian War in 431 BC. Few areas resonate as much with the ideals of freedom, equality and democracy. More symbolically, the site is also close to the synagogue in Melidoni street where, under a ruse of food hand-outs, the Jews of Athens were trapped and captured by the Germans. The acclaimed Greek-American artist DeAnna Maganias conveyed what the Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel describes as "man's inhumanity to man" in a plaque on the site. Carved in the form of the Star of David acting like as compass, the sculpture points to the cities and villages across Greece from where tens of thousands of Jews were gathered and deported. The community chose it on the basis of its "simplicity" and "ingenious design". "In keeping with the Jewish tradition it symbolised death and the memory of death in a quiet and calm way," said a committee member who oversaw an international competition for the memorial. But the marble monument, which is set in a herb garden, is also about healing. While six of the work's pieces are triangular, conjuring broken-off pieces of the star, the central piece, a massive hexagon block, remains intact and is reminiscent of rejuvenation and survival. The unveiling of the monument comes against a backdrop of growing attacks against Jewish targets in Greece. In January Crete 's historic synagogue was firebombed twice following the vandalism of cemeteries nationwide. Constantine Plevris, a prominent neo-Nazi accused of inciting racial violence with a book glorifying Hitler, was also acquitted by the supreme court. "Incidents of antisemitism are definitely on the rise and our fear is they will increase with the economic crisis afflicting Greece," said David Saltiel, who heads the Central Jewish Council representing the country's 7000 strong community. "We feel especially depressed by the decision of the supreme court. This monument, which as a community we dedicate to this city, is a reminder of what can happen when a society loses its tolerance for people who are different." Mary Michalidou, an expert on monuments in Greece, agrees that Athens ' Holocaust memorial is long overdue. "But," she says, "while it should have happened earlier, its location aesthetically and symbolically couldn't be better. It will now rank among Europe 's best Holocaust monuments." |
|
SUMMING UP FOR A LEGAL LYNCHING
Posted by Eretz Israel Shelanu, July 18, 2010. |
|
This was written by Melanie Phillips and it appeared in
The Spectator (UK)
|
|
Remember Judge Bathurst Norman, who summed up for the jury that went on to acquit the seven defendants who had attacked a Brighton factory that sold armaments to Israel by commenting that 'you may well think that hell on earth would not be an understatement of what the Gazans suffered in that time'. Well, Jonathan Hoffman has obtained the 87-page transcript of that summing up — and it's far, far more extraordinary and appalling even than the remark above suggested. Here is a flavour of what he has posted up from it on the Cifwatch blog, with his own gloss (the judge's comments are set here in bold type): Democracy would not exist unless there were reporters and members of the public who were prepared to stand up for what they believe to be right, and sometimes, as in the case of the suffragettes, even to go to prison for their beliefs. As Edmund Burke says: "For injustice to flourish, all that is needed is for good men to do nothing." Indeed, people like Mr Osmond [Christopher Osmond, the leader of the seven who admitted causing £187,000 of damage to the EDO factory] who put themselves in harm's way to protect others may, in fact — there may be much to be admired about people like that. Perhaps if he had done it in this country in the last war he would probably have received a George Medal. Good grief. The judge even compared the Israelis to the Nazis — all because they defended themselves against attack by the direct heirs to those who were actually in alliance with the Nazis in pursuit of the annihilation of the Jews during World War Two. This is of course the most offensive and grotesque collective libel, which demonises Israel wholly unjustly and, indeed, in the most cretinous way — and by implication also downgrades the Nazi genocide. When this kind of rank bigotry flows from rogue politicians or far-left journalists or academics, that's bad enough. But for a judge to abuse the task of summing up evidence to a jury by turning it into a platform for his own personal prejudice is startling even by the standards of Britain's degraded and vicious Judeophobic public discourse. This was a summing-up for a legal lynching. If the senior judiciary does not institute action against this judge for such a gross abuse of his position, we shall have to conclude that they too see nothing wrong with it — and thus have abandoned all claim to objectivity, fairness or due process in the justice system. We shall have to conclude that, for the English judiciary, there is now one law for the gentiles and another law for the Jews.
This article appeared in The Spectator
|
|
THE LEGAL BASIS OF ISRAEL'S NAVAL BLOCKADE OF GAZA
Posted by Ruth Lapidoth, July 18, 2010. |
|
The full article is at JCPA Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol 10, No. 4. Ruth Lapidoth is Professor Emeritus of International Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. She is with the Institute for Contemporary Affairs-Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. |
|
ISRAELIS IN NY COURT SUE ARAB BANK BRANCH IN PA; RUSSIA BUILDING UP IRANIAN ENERGY INDUSTRY
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 17, 2010. |
|
ISRAELIS IN NEW YORK COURT SUE ARAB BANK BRANCH IN PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY Hundreds of Israelis are in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, New York, suing Arab Bank, based in Amman, on the grounds that its branch in Ramallah, Palestinian Authority, provided services or maintained accounts that financed terrorist attacks on their relatives. Services allegedly were furnished to the Saudi Committee for the Support of Al Kuds Intifada and other organizations. Judge Nina Gershon ruled that jurors may infer that such services were furnished, because defendants failed to turn over certain pertinent documents. Defense attorney Bob Chlopak contended that the Bank turned over hundreds of thousands of documents, but was constrained by foreign law from turning over the rest. Where the Bank could, it got waivers from foreign bank secrecy laws. Defense counsel submitted evidence that Israeli forces had raided the Bank and found no evidence of untoward financing. Arab Bank is the largest one in the Arab world. It has 500 branches (IMRA, 7/15/10). Usually, lawfare is a form of aggression. Now it is being used more as defense from aggression. One hopes the tactic is not abused by the Israeli plaintiffs, the way it has been abused by Islamists in Europe and the way the American bar has become a way of gouging the whole U.S. economy. The Trial Lawyers' Association lobbies for what is one of the greatest cripplers of the U.S. economy, suits without merit or without significant benefit for any injured parties but with fortunes for litigators.
RUSSIA BUILDING UP IRANIAN ENERGY INDUSTRY, AND OBAMA POLICY The energy ministries of Russia and Iran signed a long-term agreement for financing and cooperation in building up the Iranian energy industry. U.S. sanctions do not hinder Russia. It wants to make the money (IMRA, 7/15/10). Russia thus continues to undermine sanctions. The Obama administration has defended its major concessions to Russia on U.S. national security, some of which could frighten Eastern European allies back into the Soviet orbit, on the grounds that Obama has secured Russian cooperation on the critical issue of stiff economic sanctions on Iran to cripple its nuclear development. The new agreements demonstrate that such cooperation was not secured. Tepid UN sanctions were secured. Just a photo-op, not U.S. national security. The U.S. concessions were more major than most Americans realize, based on their analysis in the Wall St. Journal, recently. And speaking of the Soviet orbit, Russia is reviving the KGB power to warn people they are funning afoul of the "law." This is part of the country's sinking back down into dictatorship. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
WASHPOST'S DISPARAGING REMARKS
Posted by Paul Lademain, July 17, 2010. |
|
Posted in response to the Washington Post's recent disparaging anti-Israel propaganda and the commentary accompanying the WP article, all designed to undermine and weaken the resolve of Netanyahu and subvert the government of Israel: "All of these comments are useless and truthless. The borders of Israel (then known as Palestine, and now called Israel) were defined by the San Remo Resolution ca. 1920, long before the UK sponsored the establishment of the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia in 1932 when the terrorist chieftain, known as Abdullah the First, seized the tribal lands of the Arabian Peninsula. Abdullah of the House of Saud utilized the same terrorist techniques and propaganda ploys currently inflicted upon the hapless nation of Israel. Israel's uneducated, ignorant, and readily tempted leadership succumbed to the bribes and blandishments of the US State Department without any understanding of the sub rosa conflict that to this day exists between the British Foreign Office and the US State Dept. Regardless, the so-called "Israeli settlements," decried by the Islamic invaders and their European pro-jihadi sympathizers, are in fact legal communities established in accord with the laws and treaties still binding the US and European states that arose pursuant to the San Remo Resolution. For the true history of the region once universally recognized as "Palestine — The Jewish Homeland," and how the UK undermined and violated the treaties that still bind it, read Prof. Howard Grief's seminal treatise on international law: "The Legal Foundation of the borders of Israel under International Law." Available at www. amazon.com. It's an eye-opener that shows the reader how to connect the dots that link the UK's not so covert relationship with the Saudis and why the UK still thinks it can dislodge US influence throughout the region and replace it with their own. The French, however, have their own ambitions and agendas and they wait with baited breath on the sidelines. Read the book — it;s a WOW! Then read Craig Unger's book: "House of Bush — House of Saud" and learn how the Saudis bend the US State Dept. to its will." Paul la Demain Secular Christians for Zion (SC4Z) |
|
BY THE RIVERS OF BROOKLYN... ON TISHA B'AV
Posted by Michael Freund, July 16, 2010. |
|
There is something that troubles me each year as the fast day of Tisha B'Av approaches. I guess, to put it simply, it boils down to this: why are so many Jews still sitting by the rivers of Brooklyn as they remember Zion? It is here in Israel, and here alone, that our national destiny is playing itself out, and there is much work that needs to be done. As I suggest in the column below, if the Jews of Monsey and Teaneck, of Flatbush and Boro Park, of Manchester and Golders Green, would only take the fateful step and come home to Jerusalem, it could have a profound impact on the nature and direction of Israeli society. This article appeared today in the NY Jewish Press
Have a Shabbat Shalom,
|
|
Next week, Jews around the world will gather together to mark Tisha B'Av, the ninth day of the Hebrew month of Av, which is the saddest day on the Jewish calendar. We will sit down on the floor and read the prophet Jeremiah's Book of Lamentations while abstaining from food and drink and mourning the calamities and disasters that have befallen our people throughout the centuries on this day. They range from the Biblical sin of the spies in the desert who spoke ill of the Promised Land, on through the outbreak of World War I, the outcome of which paved the way for the rise of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. In the medieval period, Tisha B'Av coincided with the expulsion of the Jews from various European countries. It was in 1290, on Tisha B'Av, that King Edward I of England signed the edict ordering the expulsion of all Jews from his realm. This disgraceful act was replicated by the ironically-named Philip the Fair of France in 1306, and later by Spain's Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492. But, of course, the central theme of the day lies in recalling the destruction of the First and Second Temples in Jerusalem, both of which fell, centuries apart, on Tisha B'Av. According to The historian Josephus, in Book 6, Chapter 9 of The Jewish War, some 1.1 million Jews died at the hands of the Romans during the siege and destruction of Jerusalem and another 97,000 were taken captive. Many were either sold into slavery or fed to the lions. It was analogous to a demographic and spiritual Holocaust, one that nearly shattered the Jewish people and sparked a long and painful exile from which most of world Jewry has yet to emerge. Think about it: all the tragedies and suffering that have befallen the Jewish people over the past 2,000 years — the Crusades and the Inquisition, the Cossacks and the pogroms, on through the Nazi Holocaust — can be traced back to that fateful day, the 9th day of the Hebrew month of Av, when the flames rose up over Jerusalem and consumed the Temple that lay at its heart. Had the city not fallen, had the Jews not been defeated, the exile might never have occurred, along with all the death and destruction that have accompanied it throughout the ages. So there is much to contemplate and grieve for on Tisha B'Av, which is why it has become such a central part of Jewish life. And this, of course, is as it should be. Our collective memory of the past, as well as our attachment to our heritage and our history, is what has sustained us even during the darkest of periods. Doing so ensures that we do not forget who we are, both individually as well as a people. Nonetheless, there is something that troubles me each year as Tisha B'Av approaches. I guess, to put it simply, it boils down to this: why are so many Jews still sitting by the rivers of Brooklyn as they remember Zion? With the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, each one of us has been granted the opportunity to make aliyah, a gift that previous generations could only dream of. Every Jew who does so is in effect turning back the clock on Tisha B'Av, and inflicting his own defeat on the Roman forces of Vespasian and Titus. Millions of Jews have already answered the call, leaving behind places such as Moscow and Manhattan to come and build the re-born Jewish state. But Israel needs more Jews. It is here, and here alone, that our national destiny is playing itself out, and there is much work that needs to be done. If the Jews of Monsey and Teaneck, of Flatbush and Boro Park, of Manchester and Golders Green, would only take the fateful step and come home to Jerusalem, it could have a profound impact on the nature and direction of Israeli society. An influx of tens of thousands of observant Western Jews, committed to tradition and to upholding Jewish values, would immeasurably strengthen the country and place it back on the proper course. What a boost this would be to the people of Israel! So by all means, go to synagogue next week and sit and mourn for the Jerusalem of the past, as our ancestors have done for generations. Just make sure once you get up from the floor, that you dust yourself off and come help us to build the Jerusalem of the present, and the future.t>
Michael Freund is the founder and chairman of Shavei Israel (www.shavei.org), which assists Anousim in Spain, Portugal and South America to return to the Jewish people.
He served as an adviser to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during
his first term in office.
|
|
TWO IDF SOLDIERS CONVICTED OF FIRING AT PRISONER; TERRORISTS MURDER IN PAKISTAN, IRAQ, AND NIGERIA
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 16, 2010. |
|
TWO IDF SOLDIERS CONVICTED OF FIRING AT PRISONER Two IDF soldiers were convicted by court martial of several counts of mistreating a Palestinian Arab. In 2008, the Arab was bound and blindfolded. The Israeli officer and enlisted man threatened him and shot at his foot with a rubber bullet (NY Times, 7/16/10, A6). Caution should be exercised in interpreting prepositions, such as "at," in English-language news released by Israelis. It is not precise. Israelis may say, in English, that Hamas fired rockets "toward" an Israeli town, when they mean "at." "At" indicates intent. "Toward" does not necessarily indicate intent. Likewise, "at his foot" is somewhat ambiguous. It probably means that they aimed at his foot and missed, but perhaps it doesn't. If up close, a rubber bullet is more dangerous. In many stories, I find details inconsequential to the bigger issues, but in this case, the missing detail would be definitive. What were the circumstances, and what was the motive? If the motive were harassment, the conviction is deserved. The U.S. has a prisoner named Jonathan Pollard. He has been mistreated, too. Some readers insist that he continue his already disproportionate sentence, and call anyone unpatriotic who disagrees. Who is patriotic, the person who says that the U.S. should continue singling out that one prisoner to serve past five times the customary sentence for what he was convicted of, or the person who wants to uphold U.S. justice? Who is patriotic, the writer who reports the brutal treatment of U.S. prisoners, whether it be in Iraq or whether it be of Pollard, initially put in a mental war for no cause, kept naked in a cold cell, and deprived of medical treatment, or readers who do not mind police state tactics by the U.S. government? Police state tactics are un-American and endanger Americans. Who is patriotic, the writer who points out: (1) U.S. officials' several subversive actions, including support for development of Saddam's chemical weapons; (2) The danger to U.S. agents in the USSR when agents here divert themselves and make a Jew the scapegoat for the agents' deaths without charge or evidence; and (3) Later finding a couple of other Americans who informed the Soviets of our agents' identity; or a reader who continues upholding the discredited, defamatory leak that Pollard was responsible? American counter-espionage cannot be effective if blinded by prejudice. When a reader ignores the substance of an argument, and repeats discredited assertions, he no longer is discussing, he is fighting and venting. That does not help our country. Nor does it belong in a journal.
ISRAELI RAID ON IRAN: READY FOR IT BUT FOR REPERCUSSIONS? The Oxford Research Group in Britain reports that Israel is ready to raid Iran's nuclear facilities but is not ready for the repercussions. The group is funded partly by the Ford Foundation, has issued earlier reports advocating negotiation with Iran and treating Hamas positively. Israel has prepared itself with long-range bombers and armed drones. Oxford predicts that Israel would strike not only completed nuclear weapons and missile sites, but also the factories, research centers, and university laboratories, in order to destroy the infrastructure that produces the weapons and the program's managers in Tehran. These predicted strikes would hit service staff not directly involved in the nuclear program. Staff living quarters may be near enough to be struck, too. Israel would have to repeat the raid, as Iran rebuilds. A long war would ensue. The nuclear program would be severely damaged, but the country likely would unify around its President Ahmadinejad. How would Iran react? Oxford predicts that it would withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and would work to develop nuclear weapons. This time it would burrow deeper underground, in facilities it even now is constructing. Iran also would have its surrogates launch missiles at Israel. Iran would use the attack as a pretext to punish uninvolved parties. Thus it would seek to close the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers, causing prices to sky-rocket. It would strongly support militias fighting against the U.S.. (Arutz-7, 7/16/10). The description of Oxford is made to caution readers that Oxford appears biased. This is especially true in view of its funding by the Ford Foundation, which definitely is biased and at least once had to promise to stop it, but has reneged, as reported earlier. The report is daunting. Much of it makes sense. One point not stated in the news brief is what alternative Israel has to waiting for the anticipated Iranian nuclear attack. The report's logic is peculiar about that, when it suggests that an Israeli raid would cause Iran to build nuclear weapons. What does Oxford think Iran has been doing, and why, does Oxford suppose, Israel would raid Iran's facilities if Iran were not and showed the treaty supervisors that it is not? The mention of Israel's wider-ranging targeting of Iran's nuclear military industry sounds improper but is a fair description of strategic bombing. What would be the point of destroying a couple of nuclear devices and their missile launchers, while leaving intact the factories that make them and the laboratories that design them? Service personnel present, who help make the facilities run, take their chances by working there. So long as Israel does not specifically target unskilled civilians, the raid as described is legal and sensible. Would Israel survive the rain of tens of thousands of missiles fired by Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, and Hamas? What about others? How would it deal with those? Israel could have had a fairly effective anti-missile system in place now, but its officials chose the less ready, less effective, and costlier Iron Dome system. The people of Israel will pay the price of their officials succumbing to the lure of Iron Dome lobbyists. U.S. military procurement often is mercenary or political, too, rather than rational. Israel would be paying a price for having let Hizbullah survive and Hamas survive. The same may go for the Palestinian Authority forces, trained by the U.S.. Appeasement then meant more deaths now. Appeasement of diehard enemies never works. I have suggested before that the first raid would not be the last, so long as an imperialist regime rules Iran. Whether the country would unify around the regime we do not know, though it is probable. However, the regime has such a grip on power now, that it would not be dislodged before the regime could have nuclear weapons, anyway. It is unfortunate that Iran would take out its anger on innocent parties. This is what comes of relying upon negotiations for too long and on sanctions too weak. Israel had urged the U.S. not to pursue Iraq, but to pursue the radical Iranian regime in the first place. President Bush wanted to, but his ideological opponents in the State Dept. sabotaged his efforts, and he was not a strong enough executive to insist in the face of media maligning of him and of the Democrats stalling all his nominations and legislation, including bills that would have ameliorated the financial crisis.
OBAMA VERSUS NETANYAHU 
Time Magazine assesses relations between President Obama and PM Netanyahu. It feels that Netanyahu outmaneuvered Obama. Obama was unable to pressure Netanyahu any further; domestic politics will prevent further pressure until Obama's eighth year in office, if he were reelected. Obama can only pretend he is making "progress." The magazine's journalist, Tony Karon, stated that Israel has "broadened and deepened" its hold on Judea and Samaria, in the past two decades. Probably, we are told, Netanyahu will not move against "the hard-line settlers who claim a biblical duty to colonize" Judea and Samaria. Not mentioned was that Israel withdrew from northern Samaria, as well as Gaza. The Palestinian Arabs believe there is no point in direct negotiations, they must have third-party intervention (Arutz-7, 7/16/10). Two friends of mine said last night that Obama buried the hatchet on U.S.-Israel relations. I advised them not to accept politicians' statements and conventional wisdom at face value. This is especially true about Obama, who, as I have given many examples of, changes his word sometimes daily, and Netanyahu, who talks tough while secretly betraying his word, as my articles on his secret building freeze exposed. Like most radicals, Obama does not change his policy, he changes his story, pulling back, now, to wipe egg off his face. In some ways, Israel has narrowed and shortened its hold on Judea and Samaria. It built a security fence that keeps some Jewish communities out and others penned in at the bottom of hills from which Arabs can fire down at them. That was in my news a couple of years ago. Israel has restricted Jews' construction and funding, but lets Arabs continue to squat on public land and rustle or destroy crops from Jewish communities. I've had articles on rustling. Israel has removed most roadblocks and checkpoints. Israel lets in foreign activists, who harass Jewish residents and police. Their stone-throwing is well known, their leading Arabs onto fields in Jewish communities I reported. Israeli courts favor Arab claimants over Israelis, at least for a while, then police usually fail to enforce evacuation and demolition orders against Arabs dwelling illegally. Israel released many terrorists, in lopsided exchanges. Israel let the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) build up a stronger military, but does not give Jewish communities the ability to defend themselves from the P.A. The Jewish communities should be organized into a powerful national guard that can neutralize P.A. troops that may not just attack them, but may attack mobilizing Israeli troops in a regional war. The P.A. role probably would be to delay that mobilization. Instead, Israel arrests Jews who do defend themselves. If the government of Israel wanted to strengthen Israel's hold on Judea-Samaria, it would have changed its policy so as to permit Jewish communities there to build to the end of the municipal boundaries. It would have approved the final stages of construction whose earlier stages it had approved, instead of calling them illegal purely for left-wing politics. It would have annexed the nearer communities, and taken them off the negotiation table. It would have let the P.A. weaken, instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars illicitly shoring it up despite the P.A. goal of breaking Israel down. The mention of Biblical duty for Jews is put sneeringly. Anti-Zionists, however, does not sneer at the Arabs for acting out of religious conviction. This self-contradiction indicates shallow analysis or insincerity. Likewise for people who mock genuine Jewish national sentiment for their historical homeland, but do not mock synthetic Arab national sentiment for an area to which three-fourths of their families are recent immigrants and in which the Arabs have little history. The presumed Muslim religious ties to Jerusalem are a recent, political confection, as earlier reports have shown. Jordanian rulers of the Temple Mount, 1948-67 had let it become the site of an informal garbage dump, and never visited it. The Arabs demand third-party negotiation in order to get the West, which Islamist theory poses as the primary enemy, to force Israel to accede to demands calculated to get Israel destroyed. That is not sincere peace-making. So why should Obama play the jihadists' game of pressuring Israel? Does either politician represent his country's national interests?
GAZA-BOUND SHIP DOCKS IN EGYPT: FOLLOW-UP Libyan dictator's son, sponsor of the ship bound for Gaza, explained why the ship landed in Egypt, instead. He said it was because the Israeli government agreed that Libya may support building in Gaza. He said the agreed figure was $50 million, to go through UNRWA. He characterized that as a "big victory." Problem is, Mark Regev, spokesman for Israeli PM Netanyahu, heard of no such figure or agreement. Of course, he said, Israel already had said that it would let into Gaza construction materials for projects supervised by the UN (Kareem Fahim, Mona el-Naggar, Wall St. J., 7/16/10, A10). How to account for the discrepancy? Accurate, conventional reporting is difficult. Accurately reporting what elusive and ambiguous diplomats and politicians claim is more difficult. Most difficult, I find, is reporting news from Arabs, for they have a shame-honor complex that makes it most difficult to admit defeat or error. Also, Muslims permit deception in support of religious objectives. And so we find that an Arab diplomat will make a statement that he or another denies or says is unauthorized or claims means something else, although the English meaning is clear. One example is that those who drafted UN Security Council Resolution 242 made plain in advance that the English version was to be the official one, and that the wording was crafted deliberately so that Israel would not have to evacuate from all the Territories, in exchange for genuine peace. Now the Arabs claim the withdrawal was to be total. Another example is the definition of "terrorism." In English, it refers to deliberate targeting of civilians in violent attacks for politic purposes. To gain Western approval, Arabs denounce terrorism. But they use that English-language term to exclude terrorism and to include Israeli self-defense. So they give one impression to Western audiences, but mean the opposite.
ISRAELI SECRET POLICE INCITE TO MURDER Accompanied by secret service agents, Israeli police raided the Judean home of the parents of Chaim Perlman, a suspect in the murder of some Arabs. However, the secret service may have been concerned over this: "tapes released Thursday and posted on Arutz Sheva's Hebrew page, a Shin Bet agent can be heard encouraging Perlman to murder Islamic Movement head Sheikh Raed Salah and to carry out "a small fireworks display" in an Arab village. Perlman rejected both suggestions." On tape, an agent talked about murdering other Arabs, too. This is attempted entrapment, going beyond seeking confessions for crimes committed, which crimes Mr. Perlman denies. The agents paid Perlman for their meetings. Financially embarrassed, Perlman became dependent upon the meetings and loosened his tongue to keep them thinking something might come of the meetings (Arutz-7, 7/16/10). His tongue was not as loose as the Shin Bet's. If the Shin Bet got someone assassinated because of its agents' provocation, shouldn't that secret police unit be indicted? A similar tactic was used by the agent who worked with the alleged assassin of PM Rabin. Among other things, that agent beat up some Arabs and got the blame laid upon "settlers." Standing while Netanyahu was addressing an electoral campaign audience and where Netanyahu could not see him, the agent held before the news cameras a collage showing Rabin in Nazi uniform. The media took the bait and attributed the insult to Netanyahu. The Left then claimed that Netanyahu and his whole Party and the whole Right and religious Jewry of Israel created a climate of hatred of Rabin that incited the convicted assassin to kill Rabin. [The evidence I reviewed shows it is impossible for him to have done the assassination. The evidence is explained in several books by Barry Chamish.] The term, "extremist," has been applied to "settlers." Why not to the government, that tries to get them to murder people, in order to be able to smear their whole movement?
TERRORISTS MURDER IN PAKISTAN, IRAQ, AND NIGERIA A car bomb blew up five police officers and four other people in Tikrit, where many of Saddam's supporters favor the insurgency. The police were the targets, but presumably not the four others. In Babil Province, in the south of Iraq, a gunman shot one policeman and wounded two others. In Ramadi, capital of Anbar province, a motorcyclist shot a police officer dead. Another bomb affixed to a bus claimed another victim, this time, in Baghdad. A suicide bomber in Pakistan's Swat Valley attacked near a bus terminal, killing five and wounding at least 58 more (New York Times, 7/16/10). Earlier articles show radical Muslims killing Muslims and others all over the world. The theme of such news is that radical Islam is a danger to the whole world, regardless of the existence of Israel. Focusing on Israel diverts attention from the greatest global menace since the Cold War and the World War. How do readers respond? Some respond logically. Others, however, comment that I am anti-Muslim and anti-American, that I am off the topic of Arab-Israel conflict, and that Israel is responsible for the U.S. strife with radical Islam. Maybe they are anti-Muslim and anti-American, since they express neither objection to the deaths of the Muslim victims I cite nor sympathy for efforts to defeat radical Islam that does conflict with the U.S.. What do those reader comments indicate? (1) Inability to grasp the global nature of jihad; (2) Refusal to acknowledge it; (3) Unconcern about the subject, they just use it as an outlet for antisemitism. One critic shows an ever zanier outlook, in asserting that President Obama and PM Netanyahu both are puppets of some Europeans. That is not even a sane conspiracy theory. Lacking facts, make up a nutty theory or change the subject, don't defend a view, just assert more accusations. Another nutty conspiracy theory makes up a contention that there is some sort of "radical" Zionism, which is left undefined and therefore cannot be refuted. But the millions of Muslim radicals bombing here, there, and everywhere, that is real but that this reader ignores as if unaware of it.
IHH, THE TURKISH CHARITY, BEING CONSIDERED TERRORIST? Germany already has designated the Turkish charity, IHH, as a terrorist organization. The U.S. Senate sent President Obama a letter pointing out IHH terrorist connections and the violence it conducted on the flotilla, and suggested it be considered for designating as terrorist. Up to now, the Obama administration has resisted efforts to investigate IHH and designate it as a terrorist organization. State Dept. spokesman Mark Toner said that it takes a long time to designate an organization as terrorist (Arutz-7, 7/16/10). Why does it take a long time? Too many layers of State Dept. bureaucracy, or foot-dragging by Obama? Why the resistance? Is defending civilization against its greatest contemporary danger of low priority to Obama? One thing about IHH. Whereas many Muslim charities ignore the needs
of non-Muslims, IHH made a significant contribution to disaster-struck
Haiti.
PMW CHALLENGES HANAN ASHRAWI CREDIBILITY Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) challenges the credibility of Hanan Ashrawi, member of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) parliament. (1) PMW released a report about P.A. glorification of terrorists; (2) Ashrawi reacted in an Op-Ed in The Hill; and (3) PMW countered her in The Hill. PMW's counter-attack noted that although the original PMW report documented a hundred examples of P.A. glorification of terrorists — inexcusably depicting them as role models — [as we have been reporting for some time], Ashrawi's reaction ignored the whole issue it supposedly was reacting to. The P.A. message, from Abbas on down, is that murdering young children, their mothers, and other civilians is honorable. PMW finds it deplorable, a great hindrance to peace. What was Ashrawi's case, in The Hill? She tried impugning PMW by improperly suggesting that violence she attributed to one of its supporters, The Central Israel Fund, rubbed off on PMW. [The news brief did not discuss this violence.] The Fund subsidizes 250 organizations of all sorts, none involved with PMW. PMW supports not violence but peaceful coexistence. Indeed, PMW head Itamar Marcus reviewed Israeli textbooks, and criticized the negative passages it found. PMW sponsored Peace Camp Canada for Jewish and Palestinian Arab youth. Deputy PMW director Barbara Crook sponsored an interfaith dialog weekend in Ottowa, featuring Jerusalem kadi Mohammed Zibdi. PMW's documentation led Secretary of State Clinton and State Dept. spokesman Philip Crowley, in March and April, respectively, to condemn P.A. glorification of terrorists. U.S. law forbids U.S. funding of organizations that glorify terrorists. Congress is interested in the illegality of U.S. subsidy of the P.A.. Ashrawi's 2002 statement on terrorism did not condemn terrorism as criminal. "She said killing Israeli civilians should be stopped "... because we do not see results from these actions... We believe that these operations do not advance the fulfillment of our endeavor, for freedom and independence..." [Al Quds, June 19, 2002]. She also called suicide bombings "military actions [that] are defined positively or negatively not by their own criteria but rather according to the achievement of political goals..." (IMRA, 7/15/10). Abbas talks the same way. The P.A. does not seek to gain freedom. Freedom? It represses its own people. It could have negotiate independence. No, what it seeks is to eradicate the Jewish people's freedom. Opposing that return to Jewish helplessness against genocidal ideologies, is Zionism, the Jewish national liberation movement.
OBAMA ATTEMPT TO IMPROVE RATING IN ISRAEL What was the result of Obama treating Israel's PM Netanyahu decently, this trip? Answering the same questions as on previous polls, 1% fewer Israelis still thought Obama's policy anti-Israel (IMRA, 7/15/10). Obama can fool all of the Jews some of the time and some of the
Jews all of the time, but he cannot fool all of the Jews all of the
time. Israelis seem to be learning that public relations efforts may
be tactical rather than represent permanent, substantive improvements.
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
POLICE IN 'PANICKED' SEARCH AT PERLMAN FAMILY HOME
Posted by Maayana Miskin, July 16, 2010. |
|
Police raided the home of Jewish terror suspect Chaim Perlman's parents in the Judean Jewish community of Tekoa early on Friday morning, conducting an extensive surprise search that Perlman's friends say indicates panic over the affair. Shin Bet (ISA, Shabak) agents took part in the raid as well. Perlman's friends expressed concern, "We're afraid that the Shin Bet will use any legal means — and any illegal means — to force Perlman to confess to the crimes they've accused him of. The way they turned his parents' home inside out this morning demonstrates the pressure they're under, and the panic over the exposure of the affair," they told Arutz Sheva's Hebrew-language news service. Accusations that Perlman murdered two Arabs in Jerusalem and attempted to murder others led to the exposure of Shin Bet incitement. In tapes released Thursday and posted on Arutz Sheva's Hebrew page, a Shin Bet agent can be heard encouraging Perlman to murder Islamic Movement head Sheikh Raed Salah and to carry out "a small fireworks display" in an Arab village. Perlman rejected both suggestions. The agent also told Perlman that he would have killed activists aboard the flotilla ship Mavi Marmara, one of whom was MK Hanin Zouabi, and that he would be willing to sit in prison in order to "get" MK Taleb A-Sana. The tapes prove that the Shin Bet went beyond attempts to get Perlman to talk, crossing into incitement to murder, sources close to Perlman said. Friends also accused the Shin Bet of taking advantage of Perlman's tenuous financial position by paying him money at each meeting, creating a situation in which he became dependent on his meetings with Shin Bet agents and was coerced into telling them what they wanted to hear. Perlman denies the accusations of murder and attempted murder. Friends say the charges were announced only after the Shin Bet discovered that Perlman had evidence of the attempted incitement. Gilad Pollak, a friend of Perlman's, said it was clear before the affair broke that Perlman was facing some sort of personal crisis. "He had trouble looking us in the eyes," he recalled. Pollak said Perlman told a friend, "Given my financial situation, I would even confess to murdering Arlozorov," a reference to pre-state Zionist leader Chaim Arlozorov, who was assassinated in 1933. The Shin Bet takes advantage of Perlman and others like him in order to justify the existence of its Jewish affairs branch, which seeks out Israeli Jewish extremists and terrorist cells, Pollak accused. "They try to justify their budget," he said. Maayana Miskin is a columnist for Arutz-Sheva, where this article appeared. |
|
FROM ISRAEL: GAINING STRENGTH?
Posted by Arlene Kushner, July 16, 2010. |
|
A correction: Congressman Mark Kirk of IL is running for the US Senate, but he has not yet achieved that position. Thus, my reference to him as Senator Kirk the other day was premature. (Thanks for catching this, Jeff.) ~~~~~~~~~~ What sort of strength am I seeing? Let's start with the rally against the mosque being planned for Ground Zero. I thank the many people who wrote to me about this. Seems the mainstream media didn't see fit to report on it in any significant way (which tells us a great deal about mainstream media). But last month there was a major rally at Ground Zero protesting the building of that mosque. It was organized by the founders of Stop the Islamization of America: Pam Geller of Atlas Shrugs and Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, and other groups. Fern Sidman, described this rally, which brought out in excess of 5,000 people, in Frontpage magazine:
There have been other sorts of protests since, and there is a movement to declare the building on the site where the mosque is slated to be erected an Historic Landmark, which would prevent its demolition. Americans in large numbers, it seems, are not prepared to sit still for the construction of that mosque, and this is an encouraging sign. ~~~~~~~~~~ I have just learned of a group called Idahoans United for Israel. Director Allen Gorin wrote to me that, "You should know that even in states like Idaho, with very few Jews, Israelis are viewed as the guys with the white hats!" All right! ~~~~~~~~~~ A new right-wing, staunchly pro-Israel group, "Emergency Committee for Israel," has been established under the leadership of Weekly Standard editor William Kristol and American Values leader Gary Bauer. Its members say they are tired of "political correctness" and polite criticism of the Obama administration. For starters they are taking on Joe Sestak, a Democratic congressman from PA who has demonstrated something less than staunch support for Israel; he is supported by J-Street, which has contributed $75,000 to his campaign. Additionally, Kristol has questioned whether AIPAC has been treading too softly with regard to Obama. You can read more about this group here:
~~~~~~~~~~ Leaders of several American Jewish groups are said to be expressing concern that this new organization might be "polarizing." Head of ADL, Abe Foxman, is quoted as saying, "I think it will have an effect on the political debate. That's troubling in the sense that what we've always striven to do is make sure that support for Israel in the US is a bipartisan effort." Give me a break! This group was formed because the "bi-partisan effort" has been insufficiently supportive of Israel during difficult times. Apparently Fox thinks being wishy-washy on Israel is all right as long as everyone hangs together. Maybe (it should only be) the new group, rather than polarizing, will open dialogue that will eventually move other groups to be more forthright and dynamic in their support of Israel. ~~~~~~~~~~ We may not always know what we're doing, but we're not stupid: A poll here in Israel indicates that Obama's recent "charm offensive" (in the words of the JPost) had very little effect. Only 10% of Israelis think the administration is pro-Israel. That's up from 1% before the offensive. Perhaps it's Obama who is stupid for thinking that we might be so easily swayed. ~~~~~~~~~~ Mitchell is back in town, and he has his work cut out for him. For Fatah is urging PA president Abbas to continue to refuse to enter direct talks with Israel in spite of the pressure the US is applying. Fatah put out a statement, reported by AFP, that said: "The lack of credibility and confidence resulting from the Israeli rejection of the indirect talks, which have achieved no progress, will become entrenched as 'givens and facts' if there is a transition to direct talks. The next step? Undoubtedly, leaning on Netanyahu to accede to some of the PA demands in order bring it to the table. ~~~~~~~~~~ See commentator Moshe Dann on "Why peace won't happen":
~~~~~~~~~~ More after Shabbat... Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
SO HOW CLOSE CAN THEY COME TO YOU — BEFORE YOU WAKE UP?
Posted by John J. Facino, Sr., July 16, 2010. |
|
No...this is not a repeat post of Muslims trying to do the same exact thing in Brooklyn NY. This time they are showing no respect to their neighbors in Chicago. Muslims are constantly demanding respect, yet they do not care about wants and beliefs of non-Muslims. Islam is one-way street, and we should return the favor. Say no to Muslim immigration, and Mosque construction. Hat tip to Dee. This is called "Muslim prayer center, residents collide near West Chicago" and it by Jake Griffin. |
|
Leaders of the Islamic Center of Western Suburbs want to convert a house at 28W774 Army Trail Road near West Chicago into the organization's prayer center and food pantry, but neighbors are fighting the plan. Kevin Wiley has been waiting for Monday for two years. That's the day when DuPage County's Zoning Board of Appeals opens a hearing into a proposal to convert a house at 28W774 Army Trail Road near West Chicago into the headquarters for the Islamic Center of Western Suburbs. The leaders of the Muslim group want to turn the house they bought out of foreclosure into a prayer center and food pantry. Neighbors like Wiley want the group to stop using the house for anything other than a residence until the county decides whether to allow a different use. "First it was the landscaping issues they did without the proper permits that changed the floodplain and caused my basement to flood twice," Wiley said. "The thing that bothers us the most is the constant rotation of different people coming and going every day." This is the third time the issue has been in front of the county's zoning board. The Islamic Center's new attorney, Kevin Gallaher, said he is aware of the history surrounding the proposal and is hopeful a resolution satisfactory to all sides can be reached. "There's been some miscommunication along the way on the part of all parties," Gallaher said. "All sides need to come to an understanding as to what the ultimate use of the property will be." Islamic Center leaders are seeking a "conditional use" permit that will allow them to operate the property as a religious facility. They also are asking for more parking. "They're trying to convert a residential property into something it wasn't intended to be," said neighbor Ron Cwik. Adding to the controversy is a private driveway the Islamic Center shares with Ray and Jackie Sitkiewicz. The couple told the county board last month that many times they've found themselves either unable to enter or leave their property because cars of people worshipping at the house five times a day block the drive. In January, the county cited the Islamic Center's leaders for zoning violations related to parking and non-permitted uses of the property. The state's attorney's office is seeking more than 25,000 dollars in fines it claims the center has racked up since the beginning of the year for failing to comply with the county's orders. But the case was once again held over for another month last week to see what comes out of Monday's meeting, Gallaher said. Compounding the confusion is the state department of revenue's decision last year to grant a complete property tax exemption for the parcel. That amounts to more than $8,600 off the tax rolls, Wayne Township Assessor Michael Musson said. Sue Hofer, a spokeswoman for the department, said the decision was based on a recommendation from the county's board of review. "We have no way of determining local land use," she said. "Our job is to determine whether the use of the property is consistent with the law." Hofer said the Islamic Center's paperwork was complete and included federal nonprofit documentation. DuPage Supervisor of Assessments Craig Dovel said that while his office does make a recommendation in conjunction with the board of review, the state is ultimately responsible for deciding whether to grant an exemption. Dovel and Board of Review Chairman Tony Bonavolonta said the county doesn't check for zoning violations before making any recommendations. "We don't question a religious use," Bonavolonta said. "We just forward that onto the department of revenue." However, Hofer said the state relies on county officials to make sure a property owner seeking a tax exemption is legitimate. "They are our eyes and ears on the ground," she said. Wiley said none of the government agencies are looking out for the residents. "See? That's insane with the tax exemption," he complained. "By them saying they are using the property for religious purposes, they are admitting to the zoning violations." The county has been dealing with church-related zoning issues for several years, but the county board rejected a measure that would have imposed significant limitations on locations more than a year ago. The county is being sued by another Muslim organization after a proposal to open a similar prayer center and food pantry near Naperville was rejected recently. County board member Jim Zay said the issue of zoning for religious facilities in residential areas needs to be addressed. "It's not about the church, it's about property rights," he said. "People coming into a single-family area have the right to assume it's going to remain a single-family area. John J. Facino is with Wake Up America. Write to wakeupamericans@comcast.net
|
|
ILLUSORY PEACE
Posted by Steve Kramer, July 15, 2010. |
|
While I've been vacationing in America and promoting my book, "Encountering Israel," I've often been asked about the possibility of peace breaking out between Israel and its neighbors. Sorry to say, I believe that there is no chance of a breakthrough in negotiations with the Palestinians (or the Syrians, for that matter). Three reasons are that the Arabs still hope that Israel is a temporary presence in their midst; that the Arabs can't abide Jews living among them; and that the Palestinians are primarily engaged in a civil war between Arab nationalists (Fatah party) and Islamists (Hamas party). A. The Arabs despise the idea of a Jewish state on "Arab" land, as they call the Middle East. The reason that Westerners haven't caught onto this is that it's advantageous for the Arabs to talk about peace negotiations when they make statements in English. Among themselves it's a different story. Jews (and Christians) are not eligible to rule over Muslims anywhere and that goes double on "Arab" land. The proper role for us, the infidels, is as second-class citizens, subservient to the Muslim rulers. The term for this status is "dhimmitude". From Wikipedia.com: "The term was coined in 1982 by the Lebanese president and Maronite militia leader Bachir Gemayel, in reference to perceived attempts by the country's Muslim leadership to subordinate the large Lebanese Christian minority. In a speech of September 14, 1982 given at Dayr al-Salib in Lebanon, he said: 'Lebanon is our homeland and will remain a homeland for Christians... We want to continue to christen, to celebrate our rites and traditions, our faith and our creed whenever we wish... Henceforth, we refuse to live in any dhimmitude!'" The Palestine Authority (PA) is the negotiator recognized by Israel and the West as the representative of the Palestinian Arabs. There is a misconception that the PA, which is an arm of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), has accepted the reality of Israel, the Jewish state. The PLO charter (1964/1968) states: 1) Declaration of intent to destroy Israel and "liberate" all of Palestine: True, the Palestinian National Council (PNC) did convene on 24 April 1996 and passed a resolution in which it "amended by canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged between the PLO and the Government of Israel" and assigned to a legal committee the task of redrafting the charter within six months. However, the charter itself was never formally changed or re-drafted. The original charter is still displayed on the PLO website. (See www.mideastweb.org/plocha.htm) B. While Israel's population is about one-fifth Arab, only a token handful of Jews are permitted to live in Arab countries. Ironically, Israel is labeled an "apartheid" nation despite civil rights being accorded to all its citizens, including its non-Jewish ones. (I am not denying the fact that minorities in Israel don't have the same status as most Jews. This is the same situation found in every Western country, not to mention the non-democratic nations, where it is much worse.) If there ever will be a peace treaty between the PA and Israel, it must allow Jews to live in "Palestine", as Arabs do in Israel. If not, then the West is complicit in attempting to found a racist state, though that doesn't seem to bother Western diplomats. The reality is that approximately 20% of the total population beyond the Green Line (1949 Armistice Line) are Jews, living in areas that the Palestinians claim for their own state. (Notice the symmetry with the Arab population of Israel.) Accommodation must be made for these half-million Jews or no peace will result. That doesn't mean that every Jewish community beyond the Green Line must be incorporated into Israel. But it does mean that perhaps 100,000 Jews will remain in communities located in "Palestine". If the Arabs can't accept having Jewish citizens, how can one reasonably expect Israel to take the extraordinary step of accepting a racist, militant state as its neighbor? C. Hamas is acknowledged as a terrorist entity by the West and few will deny that it is an armed wing of Iran's Islamist rulers. Hamas is subjugating the population of Gaza to its undemocratic rule and is attempting to usurp power from the PA in the West Bank. If not for the presence of Israel's soldiers in the West Bank, the Fatah party would have been overthrown already and Hamas militants would be in charge there. Unlike the PA/PLO, Hamas makes no bones about its raison d'être: the destruction of Israel. There would be no peace negotiations at all if Hamas wrests control from the PA. While temporary ceasefires with infidels are permitted by the Koran, a Jewish state in the Middle East is verboten. The Gazan Arabs, about one-third of the Palestinians, are being left out of the current negotiations. Since the PA can only negotiate on behalf of West Bank Arabs, no meaningful peace treaty can conceivably result. Because of the above arguments, I foresee no possibility that the present peace negotiations will bear fruit, even if direct talks were to occur. PA President Abbas doesn't have the will or the power to overcome Arab rejection of a Jewish state. He has even stated recently that he would join in a war against Israel should the Arab states start one: "We are unable to confront Israel militarily, and this point was discussed at the Arab League Summit in March in Sirt (Libya). There I turned to the Arab States and I said: 'If you want war, and if all of you will fight Israel, we are in favor. But the Palestinians will not fight alone because they don't have the ability to do it.' He [Abbas] said: 'The West Bank was completely destroyed and we will not agree that it will be destroyed again,' in addition to 'the inability to confront Israel militarily.'" [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (Fatah), July 6, 2010] via Palestine Media Watch: www.palwatch.org Lately, there are signs that President Obama has realized that putting pressure on Israel to "give" the Palestinians a state has backfired, hardening the Arab line. If this impression is not a mirage, perhaps the Obama administration will bring pressure to bear on the Arabs to begin to think about compromising their demands regarding the Jews and Israel. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Netanyahu, Israel has already committed to the idea of a Palestinian state and has even suspended building in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as a "confidence building measure." It's time for the Arabs to reciprocate. Despite being a die-hard optimist, I don't foresee peace breaking out in the Middle East for at least a generation or two. And that goes for those parts of the region far from Israel, such as Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Steve Kramer lives in Alfe Menashe. He has written a weekly opinion column for the Jewish Times of southern New Jersey (www.jewishtimes-sj.com) for the last ten years. He writes, "They're about history, politics, touring, or whatever excites me." He is author of "Encountering Israel — Geography, History, Culture." |
|
THE END OF PALESTINIAN DEMOCRACY?
Posted by nathan Schanzer, July 15, 2010. |
|
This was written by Asaf Romirowsky and Jonathan Schanzer
and it appeared in Weekly Standard Blog and is archived at
|
|
Saturday, July 17, was the day Palestinians were slated to hold a municipal election in the West Bank. But the elections were scrapped. Initially, only groups like Hamas rejected the vote. Then, last month, the Palestinian Authority (PA) opted to postpone the elections entirely. The legislative process came to a screeching halt. The ongoing civil war between Hamas (which controls Gaza Strip) and Fatah (which controls the West Bank) puts the Palestinians in a state of limbo, with no new elections planned. What does this mean for Palestinian democracy? Palestinian intellectuals and activists have long argued that democracy is a natural fit for the Palestinians. After the Israelis conquered the Palestinian territories in the 1967 Six Day War, they ensured that the Palestinians elected their own leaders through municipal elections in 1972 and 1976. Two decades later, during the first intifada, Palestinians built upon this tradition by electing uprising leaders. Academics and advocates argue that decades of Israeli "occupation" makes Palestinians hungry for an accountable government. Others argue that the corrupt Fatah-dominated PA has exacerbated that hunger. Finally, advocates for the Palestinian cause will say that the Palestinian Diaspora, given its exposure to university educations and Western political systems, is ready and able to embrace democracy. Prompted by the Oslo peace process, Palestinians put these theories to test. Indeed, throughout the 1990s, the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) resembled a Western-style parliament. The Palestinians cast ballots in legislative and presidential elections. By 2000, as the Oslo process came to a head, a Washington Institute for Near East Policy monograph projected that "the PA [Palestinian Authority] could become a democracy." All bets were off, however, after PA chairman Yasir Arafat launched the al-Aqsa Intifada later that year. First, the rule of law disintegrated as Palestinians turned to terror. Then, after a spate of suicide bombings in 2001 and 2002, Israel retaliated against the PA, which was a partner on several attacks. Israel's military destroyed key PA governmental targets and other infrastructure. As the PA became increasingly feeble, Islamist groups like Hamas grew in power. Indeed, when Arafat died in 2004, few analysts knew who really controlled the Palestinian streets. Amidst this chaos, in January 2005, the Palestinians went back to the polls. They officially elected Mahmoud Abbas, Fatah's second-in-command, as head of the PA. But Abbas could not control the streets. Nor could he beat back Hamas, which continued to amass power through municipal elections held between December 2004 and December 2005. Finally, in January 2006, the Palestinians held what were widely seen as free and fair legislative elections. It was touted as a testament to their political sophistication, supposedly confirming what so many analysts had posited over the decades. However, the election was also the undoing of the Palestinians. Hamas won the election, claiming 76 of the 132 parliamentary seats. Fatah was humiliated. But with support from the West, Fatah refused to hand over power, and further refused to join a coalition with Hamas. A bitter deadlock kept the Palestinians paralyzed until the civil war of June 2007. Hamas conquered Gaza in a battle that killed 161 Palestinians and wounded some 700. The political fallout was also considerable: Hamas controlled Gaza, while the West Bank remained in Fatah hands. Repeated attempts by the Saudis, Egyptians, Yemenis, Turks, Mauritanians and others have failed to foster reconciliation since the 2007 war, while the two sides (from their two different territories) continue to trade barbs. Given this context, the decision to hold municipal elections this month was questionable from the start. Indeed, little could have been accomplished under these circumstances. But this was not the reason the West Bank leaders cancelled the vote. The real reason was that Fatah could not agree on the candidates they would stand up for election. More importantly, as journalist Khaled Abu Toameh notes, Fatah feared another electoral humiliation. How can the U.S., in good faith, sponsor a state that would not be a functioning democracy? If the Obama administration wants to continue to hold out hope for Palestinian statehood, it must find a way to revive the flat-lining Palestinian political system. The odds of success grow increasingly dim. Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism analyst for the U.S. Treasury Department, is director of policy for the Jewish Policy Center and author of Hamas vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine. Contact him at js@defenddemocracy.org. Asaf Romirowsky is a visiting fellow at the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET). |
|
THE SPECTER OF CHAMBERLAIN: OBAMA, IRAN, AND APPEASEMENT
Posted by Michael Bars, July 15, 2010. |
|
This was written by Rep. Thaddeus G. McCotter (R-MI). |
|
"I cannot recall at any time when the gap between the kind of words which statesmen used and what was actually happening in many countries was so great as it is now. The habit of saying smooth things and uttering pious platitudes and sentiments to gain applause, without relation to the underlying facts, is more pronounced now than it has ever been in my experience." So wrote Winston Churchill on November 17, 1932. By 1938, as Nazi Germany used the "plight" of the Sudeten Germans as a pretext for an imminent invasion of the sovereign democracy of Czechoslovakia, British Prime Minister and principal appeaser Neville Chamberlain was still parsing his words and pursuing an undetected course amidst the immediate crisis. As David Faber records in his book "Munich, 1938: Appeasement and World War II": While (Chamberlain's) bold stroke in flying to see Hitler had captured the imagination of even his critics, few of them realized that he had gone to Germany hoping not only to solve the Czech crisis, but also to establish a personal relationship with Hitler, and to build a lasting Anglo-German settlement. In the end, Chamberlain "solved" the crisis by appeasing Hitler and betraying Czechoslovakia. Poland became Nazi Germany's next target; and World War II commenced. Today, the crisis is an Iranian regime on the brink of possessing nuclear weapons. Though it has promised to ensure that Iran would not "acquire a nuclear capability," Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' recent memo reveals the open secret that the Obama Administration lacks a coherent policy to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear armed power. Americans and the world wonder why. The reason is that, like Chamberlain and the Czech crisis, President Obama does not view solving the Iranian nuclear crisis as an end unto itself. President Obama's over-arching goal is to establish a long-term "settlement" between the Iranian regime and the United States. The President's intention was patent in his Inaugural Address: "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." Thus did the President alert the Iranian regime that, despite whatever it does to its own people and others, he hopes our nations could, as the bumper sticker implores, "co-exist" until Tehran's butchers see the light and unilaterally chang their evil ways. This morally ambivalent end alone explains the Obama Administration's limp rhetoric and actions toward Iran and their cohorts and abettors. To date, the Obama Administration's public overtures to the regime; dining with the regime in New York; begrudged recognition of Iranian freedom seekers' struggle and suffering; failure to enforce the Monroe Doctrine as the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps-Qods Force intensifies its presence in Venezuela; lapsed sanctions deadline; nebulous plan of military options; and tepid support for the Iranian Sanctions Act all evince the Administration's desire to entreat with Tehran's despots rather than stop them. Indeed, in response to the Gates Memo the Administration argues that it is considering "the full range of contingencies" regarding Iran's nuclear capacities. Of course, this would inherently entail a contingency where a nuclear capable Iran — one that has the ability to produce a nuclear weapon but has yet to do so — remains within compliance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In light of the Administration's nuclear posture review, as a practical matter, it appears all American options are no longer on the table to prevent a nuclear Iran (or likely even to respond to an Iranian chemical, biological or cyber attack). So too, apparently viewing Israel as Chamberlain did Czechoslovakia, the Obama Administration's heavy-handed treatment and consequently strained relationship with our ally; and signals the mullahs that even the security of America's allies is negotiable in the quest for a long term strategic settlement with Iran. And not to be overlooked for its linkage to the current crisis, to obtain support for Iranian sanctions, however ineffective they may prove, the Administration has placated a revanchist Russia with the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and failed to press communist China on a slew of human rights and trade violations. These two nations are the most notorious enablers of Iran's military and economy; and, not surprisingly, these two nations pose the biggest obstacles to effective international sanctions against Iran. In sum, though it has professed its commitment to a "nuclear-free world" fantasy, in real world actuality the Obama Administration has exacerbated the Iranian nuclear crisis, in the over-riding hope to strike a sustainable accommodation with the Iranian regime. Likely, this deluded rapprochement would entail Iran refraining from weaponizing its nuclear capabilities; and behaving to hasten the United States' exit from Iraq and Afghanistan. In exchange, Iran would have a nuclear "capacity" and a free hand within its Middle Eastern sphere of influence — one which would ultimately serve as a base for increasing its exportation of terrorism. To seal the deal, with the intercession of Russia and China and after a suitable period of weak to mild sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program, the stage would be set for President Obama to fly off to Tehran and achieve "peace for our time." (That time being 2012, perhaps?) Since President Obama has already received a Nobel Peace Prize for his "new approach" to American foreign policy, there is only one more thing his efforts to appease Iran might reap — the whirlwind. If consulted by the Nobel selection committee, those who have learned the lessons of history would have reminded those esteemed Norwegians how, after the 1938 Munich Accord, Prime Minister Chamberlain was roundly hailed as the "flying messenger of peace." As Chamberlain put it: "I want to say that the settlement of the Czechoslovak problem which has now been achieved is, in my view, only a prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace." Tragically, this did not prove Herr Hitler's view, as the clear eyed Churchill understood at the time: "I will begin by saying what everybody would like to ignore or forget but which must nevertheless be stated, namely, that we have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat... And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning." In our time, clear minds know we heirs of liberty cannot barter with butchers. To prevent an Iran possessed of nuclear weapons, America's sole goal must be the regime's peaceful implosion beneath its own citizens' aspirations for freedom — the freedom for which peaceful Iranians like Neda Soltan and Taraneh Mousavi are being imprisoned, tortured and murdered by the mullahs. In addition to wholeheartedly supporting the Iranian freedom movement, the United States and her allies must implement a constructive quarantine of Iran. First, this policy requires an unequivocal reaffirmation of our support for our democratic ally Israel, including the rejection of American attempts to impose its own "two state solution" upon both Israelis and Palestinians. Second, we must not blanch in continuing to secure and support sovereign democracies on Iran's border, notably Iraq and Afghanistan. Third, America and the free world must adopt a stronger, integrated approach to our bi-lateral relations with Iran's protectors, namely the People's Republic of China and Putin's Russia, to induce their support of sanctions with teeth against the Iranian regime. Fourth, pressure must be increased upon Syria to end its mutual defense pact with Iran, and stop aiding Iranian-sponsored terrorist organizations, like Hezbollah and Hamas. More steps toward the implosion of the Iranian regime will be required and more opportunities to hasten its demise will arise as the above steps are implemented. True, many on the Left will be eager to decry this necessary course; however, those same critics will be equally chary to admit that, on the Obama Administration's present course, the outcome will be a nuclear Iran's cancerous influence spreading throughout the region and the world. Presently, the crisis persists; the consequences mount; and the crux of the matter remains. Like Churchill, will America see the facts beneath the platitudes; adopt a constructive quarantine policy; and get it right in our time, before commences the next reckoning for a naive Administration's appeasement of a brutal, belligerent regime? Let us pray the Obama Administration does, whether the Iranian regime likes it or not. Michael J. Bars is in the Office of U.S. Representative Thaddeus G. McCotter (MI-11), 1632 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515, (o) 202-225-8171, (m) 202-257-0697. |
|
KARL ROVE ON WHETHER BUSH LIED US INTO IRAQ WAR; ISRAEL LETS P.A. KEEP ISRAELI FUNDS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 15, 2010. |
|
TURKEY'S ILLEGAL OCCUPATION IN CYPRUS AND TURKEY'S POSITION ON GAZA [Although revealing much about Turkey's performance in Cyprus, the source article may go too far. This is a sensitive subject. People of one nationality condemn whoever gives a hearing to the other. One side may be 80% right, but discusses the issues as if 100% right. Please explain your disagreement with the report, instead of calling names over it.] In the Republic of Cyprus, Greeks and Turks got along poorly. Each nationality committed crimes against the other. In 1974, more radical Greeks tried to make a union with Greece [which made the Turks there feel that their security was in danger.] In response, Turkey invaded Cyprus. Cyrpriot armed forces were no match. The Turkish air force bombed Famagusta, seized it, looted part of it, and they sealed off the wealthy tourist section, to this day. The Greeks fled to the southern part of the island. Turkey seized half the capital, Nicosia. It erected a wall in between. "The wall of occupation running through central Nicosia does not attract 'solidarity' protesters or leftist professors from the West. They are too busy denouncing and attacking Israel for building a security fence around Jerusalem, a fence to keep the Palestinian (Arab) suicide bombers from mass-murdering Jewish children." Besides, they know they would face harsh imprisonment. Even Turkey does not recognize the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Many UN resolutions demand that Turkey evacuate and return stolen property. Turkey ignores the resolutions. Turkey, however, denounces Israel for ignoring world public opinion. Turkey accuses Israel of occupying territory, but Turkey occupies half of Cyprus. Turkey challenges Israel's blockade of Gaza, but itself closed off sections of Famagusta. Turkey demands that Israel let descendants of Arab refugees into Israel, but does not let into its portion of Cyprus the Greeks whom it frightened out. "Since its brutal invasion, Turkey has moved countless thousands of its own citizens and regular troops onto northern Cyprus. This is the very same Turkey that venomously denounces Israel when it builds "settlements" in the suburbs of Jerusalem for Jewish civilians on lands they have purchased legally." Turkey demands self-determination for western Palestinian Arabs, but does not allow "Turkish Kurds, Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Azeris and others to exercise any of it, even in the form of limited language autonomy." Turkey denounces Israel for allegedly repressing Arab human rights, but Israeli Arabs have more freedom than do Turks in Turkey. Minorities in Turkey have been forcibly Turkified. Censorship is rife. "The state of human rights in Turkey, according to numerous human rights NGOs, continues to be atrocious. Women in Turkey are mistreated; until very recently women students applying to universities had to pass a virginity test. The Turkish military police routinely kill civilians. Journalists have been assassinated. Islamofascism is growing stronger and local Islamic fundamentalist terrorists filled the [top deck of the ] Gaza 'peace flotilla' sponsored by Turkey. Those are the terrorists whose suppression by Israel has now become the focus of Turkey's demand for an Israeli apology." (Prof. Steven Plaut, 7/14/10.) LIBYAN SHIP UNLOADING GAZA-BOUND GOODS IN EGYPT 
A cargo ship of humanitarian goods chartered by Libya terminated its voyage at an Egyptian port. Egypt's Red Crescent will transmit cargo to Gaza. Israel had warned the ship against trying to sneak into Gaza (Wall St. J., 8/15, A13). Other sources say that about eight Israeli warships barred the way to Gaza. Some of those sources told conflicting tales about what Libya's ship had done and would do. I waited for definite facts, before reporting on it.
KARL ROVE ON WHETHER BUSH LIED US INTO IRAQ WAR On the seventh anniversary of the first accusation that Pres. George W. Bush had lied us into the Iraq war, Karl Rove, Bush's deputy chief-of-staff, assembles the evidence to the contrary. Mr. Rove feels that his biggest mistake was in not doing so years ago. Leaving the accusation unanswered weakened the national unity needed in fighting international terrorism. The analysis that Iraq had nuclear weapons came from some intelligence reports [foreign and domestic]. Those reports were accepted not only by Bush but also by leading Members of Congress. 102 Democrat Members voted in 2002 to authorize the use of force against Iraq. In debate, 67 of them said that Saddam had these weapons. Sen. Kennedy voted no, but a month earlier had warned against tolerating Saddam's pursuit of weapons of mass-destruction. Kennedy was the first to accuse Bush of having distorted the military intelligence and the truth. Also a month before the vote, former Vice-President Gore said that Saddam has stashed biological and chemical weapons throughout the country. In June, 2004, however, he accused Bush of lying and of treason. Even earlier, in December, 2001, Senate Intelligence Chair Bob Graham organized a bi-partisan letter to President Bush warning that Saddam may have nuclear and other weapons of mass-destruction. Two years later, Sen. Graham demanded bush's impeachment for having agreed with him. In October, 2002, Sen. Jay Rockefeller said that Saddam's weapons of mass-destruction threaten the U.S.. In July, 2004, Sen. Rockefeller accused Bush of using "bad information" to help make the case for war. Bi-partisan commissions found errors in the intelligence, not lies in Bush's use of it (Wall St. J., 7/15/10, A15).
ISRAEL LETS P.A. KEEP ISRAELI FUNDS A Knesset shocked into speechlessness, heard expert testimony that Israel lets the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) take hundreds of millions of dollars a year, rightfully belonging to Israel. Working only from official sources, economist Nahum Gutentag of the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel laid out the facts. In the 1994 Paris Agreement, Israel agreed to collect and transfer to the P.A. the V.A.T. involving the P.A.. But Israel lets the P.A. keep hundreds of millions of dollars the P.A. is not entitled to, and that Israel is entitled to. When Israel Arabs buy goods in P.A. cities, the P.A. is supposed to transfer the V.A.T. to Israel. It does not, and Israel does not demand it. Millions of dollars are involved. Israel lets some P.A. merchants operate without tax invoices. As a result, there is no record of what V.A.T. they should send Israel. Israel's National Insurance treasury holds sums intended for P.A. residents who formerly worked in Israel and accrued those sums. Instead of locating the former employees and paying them, Israel turns the whole sum over to the P.A.. Israel does not know whether the P.A. distributes the funds to the individuals entitled to them. There are other examples. The sums that Israel lets the P.A. keep enable the P.A. to use other funds to wage a kind of war on Israel. The P.A. struggle includes legal battles against IDF officers, boycott of Israeli goods, and attempts to get Israel academia boycotted (Arutz-7, 7/15/10). The Israeli government is diverting Israeli funds to an enemy. That seems like treason. The process is not part of democratic budget-making, but surreptitious. That probably means malfeasance. Building up the P.A. economy, Netanyahu's idea for making peace, not only is an unproven remedy. It is patently foolish, because the P.A. refuses to make genuine peace, recognize Jewish sovereignty, and end its attempts to destroy Israel. The fallacy in Netanyahu's position, assuming he is sincere in it, is the assumption that prosperity fosters peace. The evidence contradicts that assumption.
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
STUDY SHOWS THAT BEINISCH PREFERS LEFT-WING GROUPS
Posted by Paul Rotenberg, July 15, 2010. |
|
Dear Friend, We are sending you "On the Perversion of Justice" — a comprehensive report published this week about the Israeli Supreme Court. Since our inception, The Legal Forum has made every effort to bring about changes in the national court system. It has been the position of The Legal Forum that the composition of the Supreme Court is not representative of Israeli society or opinion, and this is significantly because of the appointment process for judges which created a very one dimensional perspective within the court. Our initial approach was a small step, to successfully force the publication of the minutes of the selection process. We succeeded in this and as a result, the law was changed to include greater public representation on the selection committee, thus weakening the Supreme Court's influence in selecting new judges. A few months ago our efforts resulted in the rejection of the judges' nominees and the election of two individuals who bring some diversity, and in our opinion, the beginnings of balance, to the Supreme Court. We have done much and it remains our goal that the selection committee and the resulting judicial appointees should ensure a fairer representation of the various segments of the population. This campaign clearly indicates our bias regarding the Supreme Court. Furthermore, The Legal Forum has fought many battles, and despite the perversion of justice so often encountered there, occasionally won its battles in the Supreme Court. We believe that for both these reasons we must declare a conflict of interest that does not allow us to investigate the Supreme Court. For these reasons we enlisted a third party, Regavim, to work with The Legal Forum in preparing and publishing a report on the Supreme Court. This report, based on objective parameters, substantiates the claims that for many years the Supreme Court judges have allowed their political views to influence their professional judgments. Attached please find a copy of the report that is currently being deliberated in the Knesset. The English follows the Hebrew. We continue our efforts to bring about a change so that the Israeli citizen will once again be able to trust that justice and equality are truly the guidelines of the judiciary system, as befits a democratic country. This below was written by Hillel Fendel, senior news editor for
Arutz-7 (www.INN.com). It is archived at
|
|
The Regavim Association has issued a report showing that the Supreme Court gives blatant preferential treatment to left-wing associations. Regavim's full name is the Association for the Preservation of State Lands — from being taken over by hostile elements. Its report is based on the results of a four-year study of the Supreme Court's approach to law suits brought by various groups — and especially in the pre-ruling stages, when the legal merits of the various cases are not yet known. The report shows the Chief Justice Dorit Beinisch, in particular, is biased towards the left wing. The preferential treatment towards lawsuits brought by the left wing is manifest in the following areas: Rushed proceedings, Beinisch's participation on the judicial panel, the issuance of restraining orders against the State, intervention in government decisions, and especially the final rulings. The report includes many petitions brought against illegal construction, Jewish and Arab. The seriousness with which suits against Jewish construction is taken is shown to be much greater than similar petitions against illegal Arab building. "The Court's approach to the various suits brought before it was analyzed based on objective and quantifiable parameters," the report states, "and the findings show clearly that while left-wing petitions receive serious and rigorous consideration, similar suits brought by those identified with the right-wing [nationalist camp] are treated lightly and with derision." Among the parameters analyzed were the time it took for the Court to respond to a petition; the number of sessions held on the matter and the duration over which they were spread out; the panel of justices appointed to deal with them; and the issuance of restraining and interim orders. Regavim explains that its report concentrated on the procedural matters of a given suit, which take place before its merits are considered. "At this stage," the report's author, Betzalel Smutrich, explains, "the decisions reflect the judges' basic positions and biases, if any, towards the matter. This is why the tremendous differences between the right-wing and left-wing petitions, as we show in the report, cannot be attributed to scholarly legal hairsplitting." "The facts described in the report clearly indicate a consistent and conscious policy that is based on political outlooks," Smutrich says, "and it is led unequivocally by Chief Justice Dorit Beinisch." Smutrich stopped short of calling for Beinisch to disqualify herself from political lawsuits, however — presumably because she is not likely to do so. "The public cannot be expected to place its trust in its judges under such circumstance," he concluded. |
|
VIGIL 9000 ENDS WITH ESTHER POLLARD APPEAL TO PRES.OBAMA AND PM NETANYAHU
Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, July 15, 2010. | ||
|
In a wrap-up speech at Vigil 9000, ending the 3-day event marking Jonathan Pollard's 9000 days in prison, Esther Pollard used the opportunity to appeal to President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu. Before beginning her appeal to the two leaders, Mrs. Pollard praised and thanked all of the participants who showed up in strength at the marathon event. She said that she and Jonathan were deeply touched by the droves of people who came to show their support. Mrs. Pollard pointed out that because it was an on-going event in a large open plaza, 24 hours a day for 3 days, the endless stream of people pouring in, leaving, returning, and the crowd ebbing and flowing, renewing itself over and over again, was phenomenal! Mrs. Pollard proudly pointed out that thousands had participated in the "Take-a- photograph-for-Jonathan" event at the site; thousands had written postcards to Jonathan at the write-in tables; and some 25 thousand Pollard prayer cards had been handed out to individuals at the event. In short, public response was overwhelming! Jonathan, she said, was greatly strengthened by the knowledge that so many people care and took the time to come and show support, even despite the blazingly hot temperatures. In her appeal to President Obama, Mrs. Pollard first noted that the Walls of the Old City of Jerusalem had been dimmed the previous night, in solidarity with Jonathan on his 9000th day in captivity. An appeal from the People of Israel to President Obama was then screened upon the Old City Walls urging him to free Jonathan. She read the full text of the appeal that had been projected, as follows:
Mrs. Pollard explained that the appeal from the People of Israel on the Old City Walls was a follow-up to a similar appeal by the People of Israel last week, which ran as full page ads in the pages of Roll Call and Politico, the two prestigious newspapers published on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. She held up a copy of the ad, which boasted a watermark background of the American Flag and the Israeli Flag joined in friendship and solidarity. Mrs. Pollard read the text of the message to the President aloud as she displayed the graphic ad:
Based on these two appeals, Mrs. Pollard called out President Obama urging him to make this important gesture by releasing Jonathan Pollard and sending him home. She said that there are many reasons, political, social, international, and humanitarian, which make this the right time for a gesture of friendship and conciliation towards the People of Israel. Mrs. Pollard added that as the wife of Jonathan Pollard, she wanted to add to the appeal of the People of Israel. She noted that while Jonathan is strong emotionally and spiritually, her fears for his physical survival are great. She said that after 25 years in American prisons, including nearly 7 years in solitary confinement in the harshest conditions, Jonathan is in extremely poor health, so much so that she fears for his life. She urged the President to please respond to this appeal from the heart, by responding from the heart and releasing Jonathan now. She offered her thanks along with the thanks and blessings of the People of Israel. Mrs. Pollard then addressed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. She did her utmost to convey a message of courage and strength to the Prime Minister. She urged Mr. Netanyahu to "Stand strong!" and "Have no fear!" She appealed to him, saying, "Mr. Prime Minister, the People of Israel want Jonathan Pollard home! Stand with us, Mr. Prime Minister, and we will stand with you! Stand with us, and you will have our full support and appreciation!" She reminded Mr. Netanyahu that the Americans need to know that there is an address for Jonathan in Israel, that the Government of Israel accepts responsibility for the release of its agent. She urged Mr. Netanyahu to do the right thing, "The People of Israel strengthens your hand, Mr. Netanyahu! Take responsibility for your agent! Do what is right in the eyes of G-d and Man, and HaShem will surely bless!" Mrs. Pollard declared. Mrs. Pollard ended her speech expressing hers and Jonathan's sincere thanks to the core organizers of the 3-day event, apologizing in advance for not being able to name every name, but acknowledging that without Nissan GanOr, Asher Mivtzari, Adiel Elya, Yisrael Cohen, Effie Lahav, Lilach Amrusi, Adi and Tzippi Ginsburg, Ora Mivtzari, Hillel Maeir, Shlomi Boxer, Ayelet and a host of other devoted and dedicated volunteers, this event would never have happened! J4JP and The Committee to Bring Jonathan Pollard Home want to add our thanks and blessings to all who attended, supported, assisted, and volunteered, for making Vigil 9000 such a success! We thank all those who continue to work and pray for the speedy release of Jonathan Pollard.
Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to
justice4jp@gmail.com
|
|
THE TWO FACES OF MAHMOUD ABBAS: HE SAYS ONE THING TO THE PALESTINIANS, ANOTHER TO OBAMA
Posted by Daily Alert, July 15, 2010. |
|
This was written by Elliott Abrahms,
a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
It appeared in the
New York Daily News
|
|
"I say in front of you, Mr. President, that we have nothing to do with incitement against Israel, and we're not doing that," claimed Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during his visit to the White House in June. It is unfortunate for the prospects of Middle East peace that this denial by Abbas (who is also head of the PLO and Fatah) was just plain untrue. In fact, this two-faced stance of Abbas and his cronies — proclaiming peaceful intentions to the international community while inciting their population to hatred of Israel — is one of the primary impediments to any sort of solution to the longstanding crisis. And yet there are countless examples of pronouncements or actions by Abbas and other Palestinian leaders that suggest a glorification of violence and terrorism and undermine the belief that they seek peace. This very month, for example, Abbas publicly mourned the death of Mohammed Oudeh, mastermind of the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre: "The deceased was one of the prominent leaders of the Fatah movement and lived a life filled with the struggle, devoted effort, and the enormous sacrifice of the deceased for the sake of the legitimate problem of his people." Abbas also told Arab journalists in Amman, Jordan, that "We are unable to confront Israel militarily, and this point was discussed at the Arab League summit in March in [Libya]. There I turned to the Arab states and I said: 'If you want war, and if all of you will fight Israel, we are in favor. But the Palestinians will not fight alone because they don't have the ability to do it.' " Why should Israelis, or Americans for that matter, believe his commitment to peace in English, when in Arabic he treats war as an acceptable option? President Obama is well aware that popular incitement remains a thorn in the side of serious talks. In May, the President said that he had "mentioned to President Abbas in a frank exchange that it was very important to continue to make progress in reducing the incitement and anti-Israel sentiments that are sometimes expressed in schools and mosques and in the public square, because all those things are impediments to peace." At a dinner for Abbas during his Washington visit, I confronted him with several recent examples of incitement, as well as the denial that he made to the President. His reply was that of a bureaucrat, not a peacemaker: He did not deny the allegations, but said that if true they should be raised at a tripartite committee (the United States, the Palestinian Authority and Israel) that had been established by the Oslo Accords. If peace is our goal, such a response is deeply inadequate. Abbas should handle incitement by stopping it, not seeking committee meetings — and especially not by denying that incitement occurs in the first place. Of course, it's easy to see why, politically, Abbas and others in the PLO and Fatah leadership avoid confronting these organizations' long involvement in terrorism, but if they cannot do so, the chances for real peace are slim. A leadership whose maps do not even show an entity called Israel is unlikely to tell Palestinian refugees that it has given up their "right of return" or that their long-hoped-for Palestinian state within the 1967 borders will not include control of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. In fact, the critical insight achieved by the Bush administration was that the character of that state, and of Palestinian society, are more important than final borders in achieving and maintaining peace. Is terrorism defended and glorified by the top officials? Are terrorists who murder children branded as heroes whom schoolchildren should admire? Is war with Israel a tactic that must be set aside only for pragmatic reasons, and even then only as a short-term strategy? Obama is right to keep raising this subject with Abbas, but Presidents have been raising it for years. As the Palestinian leadership never seems to pay any penalty for its words, America's seriousness about the peace process is in doubt. If the Obama administration is dedicated to a major peace effort in the coming year, the incitement issue should be at the top of its agenda. Because when direct negotiations do finally begin, the key test of Palestinian commitment to peace will not be what Abbas and his colleagues say to Americans in English, but what they say in Arabic to Palestinians — about Israel, about terrorism and about real peace. The Daily Alert is sponsored by Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and prepared by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). To subscribe to their free daily alerts, send an email to daily@www.dailyalert.jcpa.org |
|
WHEN JEWS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST JEWS
Posted by Michael Freund, July 15, 2010. |
|
Even as Israel comes under increasing attack around the world, a band of left-wing Israeli campaigners is busy protesting Jews moving into Jewish-owned homes in Jerusalem. Incredibly, they prefer to raise their voices on behalf of the neighborhood's unlawful Arab tenants, rather than championing the rights of its legal Jewish owners, simply because they oppose a Jewish presence in eastern Jerusalem As I suggest in the column below from the Jerusalem Post, when Jews seek to discriminate against their fellow Jews, and aim to deny them the right to live in a certain area because they are Jews, it is a recipe for dissension and disaster. Indeed, these protesters seem to have forgotten a key lesson of Jewish history: only by standing together, united as one, can we repel the threats which loom over the horizon. Comments and feedback may be sent to: letters@jpost.com or to
me directly.
This article appeared today and is archived at
thanks, Michael Freund |
|
Each week for the past nine months, a small band of noisy left-wing protesters has been gathering in the heart of Israel's capital. Though claiming to be motivated by the highest of ideals, these would-be campaigners for human rights appear to have trouble respecting even the most basic of society's ground rules. The demonstrators have repeatedly clashed with Israel's police, broken through security barriers, attempted to block roads, and even sought to storm privately-owned property. Mustering all the indignation at their disposal, they have waged an increasingly strident battle in an attempt to draw attention to their crusade. Thus far, over 100 have been arrested, and 44 have been slapped with indictments for a variety of offenses. And just what, you might be wondering, could spark so much ire? What possible "injustice" could prompt people to come out in such a regular, and raucous, fashion? Why, it must be Jews moving into Jewish-owned homes in Jerusalem, of course! The scene of the action is the Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood, which the media prefers to call by its Arabic name (what a surprise....) of Sheikh Jarrah. Located just north of the Old City, the area is home to the tomb of Shimon HaTzaddik (Simeon the Just), a High Priest who served in the Second Temple and who was among the last members of the Men of the Great Assembly (Anshei Knesset HaGedolah) more than two millennia ago. For centuries, the site was popular with Jewish pilgrims, and in 1876, the tomb and a surrounding plot of 18 dunams (approximately 4.5 acres) of land were purchased by a committee of Jews. Dozens of families subsequently moved in, with the neighborhood eventually serving as home to a thriving community of hundreds of Jews. But in 1936, Arab rioters assaulted the area's Jewish residents, and during the 1948 War of Independence, Jordan invaded and captured the neighborhood, bringing about a temporary end to the Jewish presence there. The Jordanians allowed Arabs to move into the deserted Jewish residences, effectively creating a cadre of squatters. But after the liberation and reunification of Jerusalem in the 1967 Six-Day War, efforts began to correct this historical injustice by restoring the area to its rightful Jewish owners. Sanctioned by the courts and with the backing of police, Jewish families have been moving into homes in the neighborhood for years, in some instances forcing out Arab residents who had no legal or moral right to be there. And this — believe it or not — is what incenses the left-wing activists so much. Tossing aside the area's historical Jewish connection, they choose to ignore the fact that the Jewish presence is being renewed after it was snuffed out by Arab violence and hatred several decades ago. Instead, they prefer to raise their voices on behalf of the neighborhood's unlawful Arab tenants, rather than championing the rights of its legal Jewish owners, simply because they oppose a Jewish presence in eastern Jerusalem. It is a matter of such profound hypocrisy, and short-sighted ignorance, that it almost seems to defy rational comprehension. And that is precisely what lies at the root of the problem: a virulent strain of senseless hatred which overwhelms the mind's capacity for coherent thought. On a recent Friday, this antagonism was very much on display, as the demonstrators sought to turn up the heat still another notch. On July 9, nine protesters were arrested in a particularly violent scuffle with law enforcement after they sought to barge into one of the Jewish-owned homes. As a senior official of the Jerusalem police told Ha'aretz, "Once again, as in past weeks, the leftists are complaining after they broke the law." "Dozens of protesters," the officer noted, "left the protest area set by the court, blocked the road and tried to break into the homes of the Jews. The police force ordered them repeatedly to go back to the protest area and they refused." Among those taking part in the demonstration were author David Grossman, former Attorney-General Michael Ben-Yair and former Meretz MK Zahava Gal-On. There is something truly pitiful about all of this, coming as it does at a time when Israel is under increasing attack in the international arena. After all, there is so much advocacy work to be done, so much effort that needs to be made to defend the Jewish state from its growing number of detractors abroad. But rather than joining forces to confront this challenge, this gallant band of left-wingers invests its energies in trying to undermine the right of Jews to live in any part of Jerusalem. How sad. And how pathetic. Indeed, this coming week, the people of Israel will commemorate Tisha B'Av and the events surrounding the destruction of the Temple by the Romans. According to the Talmud, it was our own internal discord which brought about our downfall. The historian Josephus also describes how the bitterly estranged Jewish factions of the time battled each other, even as the Roman legions advanced and surrounded them. Now, we find ourselves encircled yet again, with our foes busy tightening their grip. Then, as now, our only hope lay in casting aside senseless hatred and forging a unity of strength and purpose as we defend what is rightfully ours. When Jews seek to discriminate against their fellow Jews, and aim to deny them the right to live in a certain area because they are Jews, it is a recipe for dissension and disaster. Only by standing together, united as one in defense of Jerusalem and our land, can we repel the threats which loom over the horizon. What a shame — what a terrible and tragic shame! — that despite the passage of nearly 2,000 years, the protesters in Sheikh Jarrah and their like have yet to learn this most basic of lessons. Michael Freund is the founder and chairman of Shavei Israel (www.shavei.org), which assists Anousim in Spain, Portugal and South America to return to the Jewish people. He served as an adviser to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during his first term in office. |
|
THE ILLEGAL OCCUPATION THAT MUST END
Posted by Paul Lademain, July 15, 2010. |
|
This was written by Steven Plaut.
A slightly abridged version of the following appears at
|
|
Famagusta, Cyprus; Summer of 2010 The Ghost Town lies near the very center of the city, just outside the Venetian walls. But it is home only to snakes, scorpions, and rats of a hundred varieties. Signs on the fences around the Ghost Town showing armed Turkish soldiers threaten those taking photographs with arrest or worse. The crumbling buildings inside the perimeter are frozen in time in 1974, as if they are in an episode of the Twilight Zone. Nothing has changed since central Famagusta was converted into the Ghost Town by the military invaders. It is said that the car distributorships in the Ghost Town even today are stocked with vintage 1974 models. For years after the rape of Famagusta, people told of seeing light bulbs still burning in the windows of the abandoned buildings. The few who have been allowed to enter the Ghost Town (called Varosha) tell of homes with uneaten breakfasts still on the tables, unmade beds. Books are opened to the exact pages that were being read when the barbarous invasion commenced. Hollywood studios could clothe whole movie sets with the 1974 fashions still in the closets of the homes. Three years after the invasion, the scene was described by Swedish journalist Jan-Olof Bengtsson. In the newspaper Kvallsposten about his visit to the Swedish UN battalion in the port of Famagusta in 1977, he wrote: "The asphalt on the roads has cracked in the warm sun and along the sidewalks bushes are growing. Today — September 1977 — the breakfast tables are still set, the laundry still hanging and the lamps still burning. Varosha is a ghost town." The Turks currently placing themselves at the forefront of the assault against Israel for its "illegal occupation" of its own Jewish homelands, and for supposedly mistreating Palestinians, are the very same people who continue the massive crime against humanity in the form of the Famagusta Ghost Town. Born in ethnic cleansing, it is the enduring testimony to the illegal land grab on Cyprus by Turkey, the mass expulsion of the ethnic Greek Cypriots from the northern 40% of the island, the theft of their property, and to an unknown number of murders of Greek Cypriots by Turkey. The illegal "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" is recognized by absolutely no one, not a single country besides Turkey itself. Since its brutal invasion, Turkey has moved countless thousands of its own citizens and regular troops onto northern Cyprus. This is the very same Turkey that venomously denounces Israel when it builds "settlements" in the suburbs of Jerusalem for Jewish civilians on lands they have purchased legally. Famagusta was first erected in the 13th century BC. During the Iron Age, it was known as Salamis, and its kings traced their ancestry to Teucer, brother of Ajax, a hero of the Trojan War. Phoenicians came and went, as did the Assyrians and Persians. Greek settlers came to dominate its population. The Romans turned Famagusta-Salamis into a port of significance and major administration center. Some Jews migrated in from their homeland, producing the wine used in the Jerusalem Temple described in the Talmud, and later learning to manufacture silk. The Byzantines strengthened the town's defenses, after it became a target for raids from Arab Moslems. In one of these, the mother of the Prophet Mohammed accompanied the troops and died during the raid. She is buried near the Cyprus airport, and the site has become a shrine of pilgrimage for Moslem believers. Crusaders from northern Europe took the island in the Middle Ages, but positioned their capital to the west of Famagusta. The town remained the main port for the entire island. Crusader knights took refuge there after being expelled from the Holy Land by the Saracens. In time the island was taken over by Venice, in part to prevent her Italian rivals in Genoa from grabbing control of the strategic island. The Venetians gave the center of Famagusta its defining character, with its massive defensive bulwarks, gates and towers. The winged lion of St. Mark, the patron of Venice, still looks down from the walls. Shakespeare's mythical Othello served as ruler of Famagusta, and the largest Venetian fortress in the wall is obligingly called Othello's Tower even today. In 1571 the Ottoman Turks lost patience with their Venetian allies and seized the island, taking Famagusta only after a nine month siege. It was the last Christian stronghold to fall. The majority ethnic Greeks of the island maintained their cultural identity, speaking their own language and stubbornly preserving their Christian Orthodox faith, in spite of attempts by the Latins and Ottomans to expunge it from their midst. The impressive main cathedral of Famagusta was converted into a mosque, and remains so to this day. The Turkish colonialists turned the island over to the British colonialists in 1878 as part of a deal to get Great Britain to back the Ottomans in their fight against subjugation by the Russian Czar. Britain wanted Cyprus to serve as a naval base guarding the access to the Suez Canal, and governed the island with a policy of benign neglect. In the 1940s the British grabbed ships filled with Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler and seeking refuge in the Land of Israel. They imprisoned the Jewish refugees on the island in camps around Famagusta. After an armed campaign by Cypriots to drive the Britain from the island, the Brits left in 1958 and Cyprus became a republic. Things were not well, however, in the inter-communal relations between Cypriot Greeks and Cypriot Turks, with growing incidents of atrocities and violence taking place. Crimes were committed by both sides. After a particularly horrific set of attacks, and partly in response to attempts by some radical Greek nationalists on the island to seek amalgamation with Greece, the Turks invaded the island militarily in the summer of 1974. Turkish tanks landed on the northern shore west of Kyrenia and quickly drove out the weak Cypriot armed forces from the northern part of the island. Within two days they had taken Famagusta. The Turkish air force bombed the helpless town. The entire Greek population, fearing massacres at the hands of the invaders, fled south to the areas beyond the reach of the Turkish army. Evidently to show the Greek Cypriots who was the new boss in town, the Turks sealed off the wealthy tourist area of Famagusta altogether, denying civilians access. The new Ghost Town was filled with valuable Greek property, including homes and luxury hotels. It had been the capital of the Cyprus tourist industry, thereafter forced to relocate to the south. The artifacts and museum of the Ghost Town were looted. Meanwhile, the Turkish tanks rolled onward until Turkey had conquered exactly half of the Cyprus capital of Nicosia. There it erected a wall running through the center of the city, a wall still there — many years after the similar wall in Berlin fell. To cow the Greek Cypriots of southern Nicosia, the Turks created the world's largest flag on a mountainside facing the city. Other Turkish flags fly over the northern half of the city and Nicosia mosque minaret speakers are said to have their volume dials turned to the maximum just to antagonize the ethnic Greeks beyond the wall. The wall of occupation running through central Nicosia does not attract "solidarity" protesters or leftist professors from the West. They are too busy denouncing and attacking Israel for building a security fence around Jerusalem, a fence to keep the Palestinian suicide bombers from mass murdering Jewish children. No Rachel Corries come go Nicosia to defy the Turkish occupation army. They know they would be jailed without hesitation in a nice Turkish Midnight Express, or worse. Countless UN resolutions since 1974 have demanded that Turkey leave the island and restore property stolen by Turkey to Greek Cypriots. The same Turkish government that regularly denounces Israel for daring to defend its own civilians from Arab terrorists and for otherwise disregarding anti-Israel world opinion has never paid those UN resolutions any mind. The Turkish rapists of Famagusta, the Turkish occupiers of northern Cyprus, are angry at occupation. But only by Israel. They send "Peace Flotillas" filled with armed terrorists to challenge the closure of Gaza by Israel, but never question the closure of Famagusta's Ghost Town. Turkey demands a right of return to Israel for "refugees" claiming to be "1948 Palestinians," never mind there are 22 Arab states in which the same "Palestinians" can live comfortably, but refuse to even take under consideration a right of return for Greek Cypriots to their own property lost in 1974. Turkey insists that "Palestinians" be granted statehood and "self-determination," while refusing to allow Turkish Kurds, Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Azeris and others to exercise any of it, even in the form of limited language autonomy. While Arabs living in Israel enjoy levels of freedom a hundred times better than do Turks living in Turkey, the Turkish government continues to denounce Israel for its oppression of Arab "human rights." On the very day recently when Turkey murdered 120 Kurds, it denounced Israel for committing "war crimes," supposedly committed when the Israeli army invaded Gaza in response to the thousands of rockets fired at Israeli civilians. The respect for human rights in Turkey is notable for its absence. Kurdish, Armenian, and other ethnic minorities have been forcibly Turkified. Religious minorities, such as the Alevi, are persecuted. Censorship is commonplace. Kurdish areas have been subjected to martial rule. The operations of the Turkish military against the Kurds make Israel's recent incursion into the Gaza Strip (in Operation "Cast Lead") look like a May Day picnic. Until 2003, it was forbidden to speak Kurdish on the radio or television; the Kurdish alphabet still cannot be used. The state of human rights in Turkey, according to numerous human rights NGOs, continues to be atrocious. Women in Turkey are mistreated; until very recently women students applying to universities had to pass a virginity test. The Turkish military police routinely kill civilians. Journalists have been assassinated. Islamofascism is growing stronger and local Islamic fundamentalist terrorists filled the Gaza "peace flotilla" sponsored by Turkey. Those are the terrorists whose suppression by Israel has now become the focus of Turkey's demand for an Israeli apology. When Israel invaded Gaza to put a stop to massive rocket attacks against its civilians by Hamas terrorists, the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan denounced Israel for supposedly "massacring innocent women and children." He repeatedly accused Israel of "mass murder" in Gaza. Erdogan ranted at length about how Israel had turned the Gaza Strip into an "open-air prison." But, in fact, the largest ongoing "open air" human rights violation and crime against humanity is on display for all today, behind the barbed wire and fences of the Ghost Town of Famagusta. |
|
UN MOVES FORWARD TO IMPLEMENT GOLDSTONE REPORT:
NEW UN COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND UN STAFFER HAVE ANTI-ISRAEL CONNECTIONS
Posted by Eye on the UN, July 14, 2010. |
|
This article by Anne Bayefsky appears today on WeeklyStandard.com. |
|
Among the multitude of attacks on Israel that the United Nations has sponsored over the decades, last year's Goldstone report on the 2009 Gaza war stands out for its dangerous distortions of fact and law. Now the UN Human Rights Council has sponsored a second-team of investigators to press forward with the report's implementation. Just as with round one, the United Nations has guaranteed the result of round two by selecting individuals whose independence is compromised from the start. This second rendition of Goldstone was crafted by a March 2010 resolution of the Human Rights Council. That resolution first declares that Israel — and only Israel — committed "unlawful acts" in the Gaza war. And then it establishes a committee of experts to monitor and assess all judicial and other proceedings taken by Israel to respond to the General Assembly's endorsement of the Goldstone report and its long list of supposed Israeli crimes. The mandate also asks the new committee to assess the proceedings of the enigmatic "Palestinian side." In the many resolutions on the Gaza war from the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council no mention is ever made of "Hamas," which keeps with the UN fiction that the war entailed wanton Israeli aggression in a vacuum. Instead of eight years of rocket attacks on Israel's civilian population and an elected government that openly advocates genocide, the resolution creating the Goldstone inquiry describes the problem with the Palestinian side as "crude rockets...result[ing] in the loss of four civilian lives and some injuries." The fact that the mandate of the Goldstone inquiry was tainted from the outset, and that its successor is cut from the same cloth, did not deter three more lawyers from taking this latest UN job. They are German Christian Tomuschat (chair), Malaysian Param Cumaraswamy, and American Mary Davis. As it turns out, the takers and their UN associates have more in common than first meets the eye. The members of the new committee were appointed on June 14 by the UN high commissioner for human rights, South African Navi Pillay. One of Pillay's two legal advisers, and chief of her office's "rule of law" branch, is Palestinian Mona Rishmawi, former executive director of the Palestinian NGO al-Haq and until 2000 a prominent director of a unit of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ). All three of the new committee members are affiliated with the ICJ. Committee members Christian Tomuschat and Param Cumaraswamy were members of the ICJ's executive committee during Rishmawi's term at the ICJ. Cumaraswamy was ICJ's vice president until 2006. Currently both are honorary members. Mary Davis is currently on the board of the American Association for the ICJ. The ICJ has been closely connected with the Human Rights Council's campaign to vilify Israel over the Gaza war, and in particular, the Goldstone report and its follow-up. In January 2009 the Council held a special session to denounce Israeli actions and adopt the resolution that gave rise to the Goldstone inquiry. Of the thousands of UN-accredited NGOs, the ICJ was one of two-dozen that spoke. It claimed Israel had violated international law during the conflict and called for the inquiry's creation. Then, on October 16, 2009, when the Council held a special session to endorse the Goldstone report, the ICJ was again one of the few NGO speakers. This time it specifically called the Israeli investigations into the Gaza conflict "ineffective as they lack safeguards of independence and impartiality..." On June 24, 2010, soon after the appointment of the three senior ICJ members to the Goldstone follow-up committee, the ICJ issued a public statement coming to the defense of Goldstone, his apartheid-era past, and his report. The mandate establishing the committee that is now populated by ICJ members, however, demands the assessment of the "independence" and "effectiveness" of Israeli proceedings and their conformity with international standards. Not only has the ICJ already expressed an opinion on the subject to be assessed, in its statements it claims that the prosecution and punishment of Israeli "civilian leaders and military commanders" for Goldstone's list of crimes is "essential" to conform to those standards. In effect, therefore, the new committee will constitute a direct assault against the individuals at the helm of Jewish self-determination. The committee's work will be coordinated and facilitated by a UN secretariat official selected by High Commissioner Pillay, South African lawyer Ahmed Motala. No doubt, Mr. Motala was delighted to get the assignment. On January 5, 2009 in the middle of the Gaza war, he wrote on the South African website www.thoughtleader.co.za the following: "The war in Gaza and the killing of innocent Palestinians is not about Hamas, but entirely about the forthcoming elections in Israel...What better way to gain the support of the Israeli electorate than to...kill innocent civilians...The costs of victory in an election in Israel are being paid for by the blood of innocent Palestinians." Lawyers Motala, Tomuschat, Cumaraswamy, and Davis will now work together to implement what might even be described as a blood libel at the center of the Goldstone report. In the report's words: Israel "deliberately...terrorize[d] a civilian population," and Israeli "violence against civilians w[as] part of a deliberate policy." Rather than being motivated by self-defense, Israel's political and military leadership allegedly set out to murder the people most deserving of protection, and this new UN cabal will pronounce on the willingness of Israel's judiciary to respond accordingly. The Organization of the Islamic Conference, the League of Arab States, and the United Nations apparatus are furiously pretending this is all about law — they call it "accountability" and an "end to impunity." Not surprisingly, the loudest calls are coming from states that care nothing for either concept when it comes to their own citizens, or accountability for the many heinous acts Palestinians perpetrate on each other. In reality, of course, from conception, the target of the Goldstone report and its follow-up has always been Israel. Though the battleground has been painted over to look like a courtroom, the battle is political. Today it happens to take the form of a partisan committee charged with investigating the independence of Israel's own investigations, supported by pro-Palestinian advocates doubling as UN human rights officials. The only way to respond is to challenge the legal bona fides of the report and its progeny and expose the venality of the political agenda inseparable from them. The case must begin by refusing to lend any credence to this latest mutation of the UN virus. "EYEontheUN monitors the UN direct from UN Headquarters in New York. EYEontheUN brings to light the real UN record on the key threats to democracy, human rights, and peace and security in our time. EYEontheUN provides a unique information base for the re-evaluation of priorities and directions for modern-day democratic societies." Visit www.eyeontheun.org |
|
HIGH COURT REBUFFS JEWISH SECURITY PRISONER'S VISIT PLEA
Posted by Hillel Fendel, July 14, 2010. |
|
The Supreme Court has rejected a request by long-term Jewish security prisoner Shlomi Dvir to allow his wife and children to visit him without a partition in between them. This, despite the fact that a similar request by Arab terrorist prisoners was accepted just several weeks ago. The Court ruled that it saw no reason to intervene in the decisions of the Israel Prison Service on the matter — decisions that are known to be initiated by the Jewish Department of the Israel Security Agency (Shabak). Dvir was sentenced nine years ago to 15 years in prison for his role in a failed bombing of a girls' school in eastern Jerusalem, following the terrorist murder of five-year-old Danielle Shefi in her home in Adora, near Hevron. Ofer Gamliel, Dvir's neighbor both in the Jewish community of Bat Ayin in Gush Etzion and in prison, was similarly sentenced to 15 years for the same incident. Both Dvir and Gamliel are not allowed vacation time — a right normally accorded to prisoners each month — nor are they permitted to be visited by non-family members. Even their children are not granted the same cultural program rights granted to other prisoners' children. The Israel Prison Service enacted about a year ago a new framework for family visits. Instead of the families sitting together in one room, a partition with windows was installed, with the prisoners on one side and the families on the other. The Gamliel family refused to visit at all under these circumstances, until finally the authorities relented and agreed to allow them one non-partition visit each month. The Dvir's, however, found themselves unable to follow this course, and their only physical contact with their father came when they were able to crawl through the window in the partition — depending on whether the jailers that day turned a blind eye or not. The Dvir family, therefore, petitioned the Court to allow them to visit without a partition — leading to today's rejection by the Supreme Court. Atty. Wurtzberger's View Attorney Naftali Wurtzberger, hired by the Honenu Legal Rights Forum for the case, later told Israel National News, "The judges stated they did not wish to intervene in the security decisions of the jails... There was some discomfort when it was mentioned that the Court did intervene on behalf of terrorists recently — but they did not substantively relate to that ruling..." Wurtzberger said there was a veiled hint on the part of State Prosecution representatives that if the Court allowed the improved visits, the Prison Service could respond by harming Dvir's rights in other ways, such as moving him out of the religious ward. In response to a question, Wurtzberger acknowledged that the lack of fairness "does arouse some despair..." Asked if he retains confidence in the judicial system, he said, "There's certainly a feeling of trying to climb up a slippery wall ..." A Third Off for Good Behavior? Is there a chance that Gamliel and Dvir will be released on parole after serving 2/3 of their sentences? Ofer Gamliel's wife Michal says, "Maybe." She told Israel National News that though it is generally accepted that if a prisoner does not receive vacation rights, he similarly will not get a third off for good behavior, and though the Shabak does not appear to want to allow any leniencies for her husband or for Dvir, "there is a chance that if there is a public outcry, something could change. It could be the difference between him being in prison for ten years or for 15." She suggested that the public begin with phone calls and letters to Justice Minister Yaakov Ne'eman, "who has promised to help in the past, both in terms of a pardon and the proposed law to link the release of Arab terrorists with the release of Jewish — but he has done nothing yet." Minister Ne'eman can be faxed at (+972-2) (or 02, in Israel) 628-5438, and emailed at Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor at Arutz-Sheva (www.Israel National News.com). |
|
PMW OP-ED CHALLENGES HANAN ASHRAWI'S CREDIBILITY
Posted by Itamar Marcus, July 14, 2010. |
|
Background to Op-Ed: After PMW director Itamar Marcus's press conference in Washington with Congressmen Brad Sherman and Steve Rothman to release the PMW report "From Terrorists to Role Models, Palestinian Member of Parliament," Hanan Ashrawi wrote an Op-Ed in the influential Washington newspaper, The Hill, to attempt to challenge Palestinian Media Watch and defend the Palestinian Authority. Itamar Marcus's response, documenting the current PA leaders' and Ashrawi's response to terror, was published yesterday in The Hill. "The Hill has a print circulation of above 21,000, more than any other Capitol Hill publication. It is aimed at the 100 senators, 435 House members, 40,000 aides and tens of thousands in the influence industry whose work affects the lives of all Americans." [from The Hill web site, http://thehill.com/ ] |
|
In an attempt to distract Congress's attention from a new Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) report documenting the Palestinian Authority's terrorist glorification, Hanan Ashrawi rushed to publish an article in The Hill to malign PMW. More striking still, although Ashrawi's article was in response to PMW's new report released in Congress, she did not allot even one sentence to name, review or even criticize the report's content. Why is Ashrawi so anxious to keep the contents of the PMW report from Congressional review? Possibly because the report, From Terrorists to Role Models: The Palestinian Authority's Institutionalization of Incitement, documents 100 examples of the Palestinian Authority policy of turning terrorist killers into heroes and role models — a practice as disturbing as it is indefensible. The PMW report documents, for example, that the terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who led a bus hijacking in which 37 civilians were murdered, has been immortalized through the repeated naming of sites and events after her, including two elementary schools, a kindergarten, a computer center, a summer camp, football tournaments, a public square and street, an adult education course, a university club, a dance troupe, a military unit, a dormitory in a youth center and more. Significantly, this terror veneration is coming from the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. It was PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas himself who funded the computer center named after bus hijacker Mughrabi, and it was Prime Minister Salam Fayyad who sponsored a sporting event named after Abu Jihad, who planned and directed the bus hijacking. The message the PA leaders are disseminating could not be more problematic: We, the Palestinian President and Prime Minister, believe that murdering brothers 6-year-old Roi and 3-year-old Ilan Hochman and their mother Rebecca, along with 34 other civilians on a bus, was an act worthy of honor. The PA's message that terrorists are role models is as damaging to peace as it is odious. It is not surprising, therefore, that Ashrawi wants to distract Washington from the report, by attempting to wrongfully link PMW to extremist violence through one if its supporters, the Central Fund of Israel. PMW receives grants from CFI, which funds more than 250 organizations and gives financial aid to a range of non-profits, including soup kitchens, Ethiopian immigrants, and educational programs. There is no connection between PMW and any of the other 250 recipient organizations. In fact, far from supporting or being involved in extremist violence, PMW's senior staff has vigorously promoted peace and coexistence. To name just a few of our peace-promoting activities, I wrote a report on Israeli schoolbooks for the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace that documented and criticized any negative content that was found. Associate Director Barbara Crook sponsored an Interfaith Dialogue weekend in Ottawa, featuring Kadi Muhammed Zibdi, kadi of Jerusalem, and was a sponsor of Peace Camp Canada, a program for Israeli and Palestinian youth. There is still another reason for Ashrawi to try to keep the contents of PMW's report quiet. The US government has already responded to these PMW findings by emphatically condemning PA terror glorification. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley: "We also strongly condemn the glorification of terrorists... We will continue to hold Palestinian leaders accountable for incitement." [April 8, 2010] Hillary Clinton likewise condemned a group that "... glorifies violence and renames a square after a terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis." [March 22, 2010] Moreover, US law prohibits the use of American funds for terror glorification. As the United States today is funding the Palestinian Authority, American money is indirectly being used to glorify Palestinian terrorists. Congress will soon be questioning if funding the Palestinian Authority violates American law. Finally, it is important to note Hanan Ashrawi's famous statement on terror. At the height of the Palestinian terror campaign in 2002, after hundreds of Israeli civilians had been killed in suicide bombings, Ashrawi and others issued a public declaration. However, she didn't condemn suicide terror or say killing civilians was wrong. She said killing Israeli civilians should be stopped "... because we do not see results from these actions... We believe that these operations do not advance the fulfillment of our endeavor, for freedom and independence..." [Al Quds, June 19, 2002]. She went on to refer to suicide bombings as "military actions [that] are defined positively or negatively not by their own criteria but rather according to the achievement of political goals..." So is it any wonder that today she attempts to evade PMW's report exposing Palestinian Authority terror glorification? Hanan Ashrawi owes it to the readers of The Hill to at least address the findings of the PMW report. Will she join the US administration and Congress and condemn terror glorification? Or will she defend Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad's honoring of terrorists? We are waiting for her answer.
Itamar Marcus, founder and director of Palestinian Media Watch,
released the Palestinian Media Watch report with Rep. Brad Sherman and
Rep. Steve Rothman on May 6 2010.
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: MORE THAT'S GOOD
Posted by Arlene Kushner, July 14, 2010. |
|
As I write, it appears that we have won the day with regard to the Libyan ship that had been headed for Gaza. Last report is that it changed course during the night, and that the captain had indicated he would dock in the Egyptian port of El-Arish. The ship is being watched closely, in the event that it again shifts course and heads for Gaza. Apparently there had been some indirect communication between Israel and the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation, the organization headed by Moammar Gaddafi's son, Saif, that underwrote this venture. ~~~~~~~~~~ What our government found particularly satisfying was the international support received for our refusal to let this ship proceed. US State Department spokesman Phillip Crowley said yesterday: "We have urged the Libyan government to avoid unnecessary confrontations... The EU issued a similar statement. Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon called this a victory for Israel. ~~~~~~~~~~ A word about Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and his Foundation: According to the IsraelMatzav blog, citing CBS, "the Obama administration" has committed to a grant of $200,000 for this organization. Senator Marc Kirk (R-IL) wants it withdrawn because Saif was responsible for securing the early release from prison of the Lockerbie bomber and bringing him back to a hero's welcome in Libya.
Based on my experience in these matters, however, I would like to make an educated guess about something here. While I certainly don't quarrel with the Senator's objection to providing a grant to this foundation, it seems to me that saying it came from "the Obama administration" is a bit vague. My hunch would be that this came from US AID and Obama knew nothing about it. US AID, which operates with shocking lack of accountability, does just fine on its own, thank you, with regard to funding of dubious projects. Not long ago I wrote about US AID underwriting of a PA Tourist Ministry booklet that described the "State of Palestine" as if it were a reality. ~~~~~~~~~~ There were Arabs, waiting at the Gaza coastline and expecting to be able to welcome the Libyan ship, who are a tad disappointed. Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyah called the ship "our sailing hope at sea," and had urged that it not be diverted by "tricks" from its original course. ~~~~~~~~~~ Statements made by Hanin Zoabi — shortly after she entered the Knesset as a member of the (Arab) Balad Party — made it clear that she was big trouble. Last March, for example, she said she welcomed Iran's development of nuclear weapons because it was "more useful to the Palestinian issue and more standing against occupation than a lot of the Arab countries. This is our interest..." Israel has an enormous (I would say, excessive) tolerance for Arab dissidents within the Knesset who make anti-Israel statements and sometimes act in ways that are not in Israel's interest. But yesterday Zoabi got her comeuppance. Because she had traveled as a passenger on the Turkish flotilla ship, the Marmara, and referred to the blockade of Gaza as "the big crime of Israel," she was stripped of her Knesset privileges, including such things as use of a diplomatic passport and enhanced freedoms regarding international travel. She was accused by some Knesset members of being a traitor, and I would say that was fairly accurate. ~~~~~~~~~~ Israeli courts have tended to work against actions to chastise and limit the participation of Arab MKs who are clearly not interested in Israel's wellbeing as a Jewish state. The former head of the Balad Party, Azmi Bishara, resigned from the Knesset and fled the country after he was accused of assisting Hezbollah during the 2006 Lebanon War. Until now, he has actually (I kid you not — I couldn't make up anything this perverse) been receiving his Knesset pension because the court ruled that Israeli law does not permit it to be revoked. Well, the Knesset is in process of changing that law. A new law, referred to as the "Bishara law," has passed through the Ministerial Committee on Legislative Affairs and is expected to pass in the Knesset, but has not yet. It would prevent Bishara from receiving Israeli funds, but would also apply to others within a defined category. ~~~~~~~~~~ A correction from yesterday: I wrote that Jerusalem and the Golan, where civil law has been applied, are "fully Israeli" and have a different status from Judea and Samaria. I have been advised — and I appreciate this advice — that while, indeed, civil law does apply to both Jerusalem and the Golan, Jerusalem has been officially annexed and the Golan has not. ~~~~~~~~~~ We've been hearing about a consistent drop in Obama's popularity on the part of the American electorate. But here is information — encouraging indeed — regarding the degree to which American Jews in particular have become disenchanted with the president. Says commentator Marc Thiessen, writing in the Washington Post: "The drop in Hispanic support [12%] is dwarfed by the astounding 36-point drop in support for Obama from one of the most reliable Democratic constituencies: Jewish voters. Jewish Americans are outraged with Obama, says former New York Mayor Ed Koch. And it's not because Obama's middle name is Hussein." ~~~~~~~~~~ We probably can count this as good news too: Riad al-Maliki, foreign minister of the Palestinian Authority, during a visit to Bulgaria today, said negotiations with Israel without the participation of an international party would be meaningless. "We have always said, we need a third party. Without the presence of a third party it would be a waste of time."
We don't know, of course, if this is going to be official PA policy, although we do already know this is the way PA officials think. If Abbas does refuse to come to the table, then Netanyahu's (potentially risky) "I'm willing and eager to negotiate" approach will have paid off. ~~~~~~~~~~ The IDF has now declassified information on how Hezbollah has turned south Lebanese villages into military bases. Since the 2006, Hezbollah has focused on moving military installations from open areas to 100 civilian villages, in contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention. It is exceedingly important for the world, and in particular journalists, to understand this process. When there is war with Hezbollah (and it's likely coming) the deliberate large scale use by Hezbollah of human shields is going to generate more civilian deaths — whatever precautions Israel may take. Everyone needs to understand, up front, where the fault will lie. The IDF spokesman's site below provides maps and a 3-D video explaining how Hezbollah has been going about this.
~~~~~~~~~~ As to that impending war, Gal Luft, executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, writing in the Washington Times, says: "The discovery of a gigantic natural-gas reservoir less than 100 miles off Israel's coast seems like great news for the diplomatically and militarily embattled country. The gas finding will strengthen Israel's energy security, enable it to become an important gas exporter and contribute wealth to its economy. ~~~~~~~~~~ Luft speaks of Hezbollah in this regard, but keep in mind that Hezbollah is now part of the Lebanese government. And it was Lebanon's Speaker of Parliament, Nabih Berri, who claimed that part of Israel's newly discovered gas field lies within Lebanon's territorial waters. The field, called "Leviathan," was discovered in June off the coast of Haifa. It is estimated to contain 15 trillion cubic feet of gas, enough to potentially enable Israel to become an energy exporter. Earlier, a field called "Tamar" was discovered not far from this latest field. "Tamar" alone is believed to contain enough gas to supply Israel for the next twenty years, and "Leviathan" is thought to be twice as big. In response to the Lebanese challenge, about three weeks ago, Uzi Landau, Minister of Infrastructure, replied, "We will not hesitate to use our force and strength to protect not only the rule of law but the international maritime law." ~~~~~~~~~~ A recent edition of the JPost magazine had a feature article on the Jewish community of Toronto, considered to be one of the most vibrant Zionist communities outside of Israel. In that context, I would like to mention one energetic group, Canadians for Israel's Legal Rights. They have a brand new website: http://www.cilr.org:80/. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
HEARING: COMMISSION ON THE BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY LAND-MARKING DECISION
Posted by Marion D.S. Dreyfus, July 14, 2010. |
|
The raucous land-marking commission meeting at 914 Lexington, in the Hunter College Auditorium, was attended by roughly 250 people, and ran from early afternoon, 2 pm, until after 5 pm. Moderator of the Commission: John Tierney. A description of the requisites for landmark status was read, and the mission of the hearing was laid out for the audience and prospective slate of speakers. Speakers on mics were given a timed period to address the 15-person commission, males and females, after which, a bell was rung to let the speaker know his/her time had expired. Roughly 35 speakers addressed the assembly and the commission seated on the stage. Of this figure, some 95% were in favor of land-marking 45-47 Park Place, the former Burlington Coat Factory, now being bruited as the site of a $100 million mega-mosque cum social centre. The building was built in the late 1850s in the Italian Renaissance palazzo style. The views of the 9/11 survivors and families, NYPD and NYFD, as well as those opposing the mosque erection on varied grounds including inappropriateness and disturbance of the memory of the 9/11 dead, far outweighed the assertions and testimony of those opposing land-marking status. The Burlington building, though unlovely in the traditional sense, is one of the city's few remaining iron-works edifices, and buildings in the ironwork mode, by the same architects, have already been landmarked. Those asking the building to pass into the hands of the controversial Cordoba Initiative asserted that the new mosque would serve the community and act as a locus for ethnic and religious interaction and exchange. Many of the speakers seeking landmark status for this century-plus building were heckled time and again by some male person who screamed "Bigot! Fascist! Right-wing hater!" despite numerous calls for him to be removed. when he rose to go to relieve himself, he was escorted out by local and Hunter College police, who collected his incendiary handmade scrawls and Communist circulars. Among the notables speaking at the afternoon session were Islamic expert Robert Spencer and former Congressperson Rick Lazio, who both spoke eloquently to the positives of land-marking this traditional building. The commission was addressing solely the issue of whether he building should be landmarked, although many of those speaking did bring in the more-than-backdoor element of two-faced Imam Rauf and his highly public wifelet, and the reasons a mosque in this hallowed area might be distinctly insulting and trying to Americans could not help but be brought up repeatedly. The chair chided several speakers that the issue at the podium was strictly land-marking, not theism or Allah or the 3,000 dead. This reporter spoke on her personal observations of the meaning of Cordoba to muslims, in which a 600-700 year old 'loss' of Spain still counts in the day-to-day prayers an reality of many millions of North African muslims, no less than the umma at large, which still keens for the loss of their brief rule over Andalusia/Spain, a mere 700 years ago. The choice of name, it was repeatedly pointed out, meant that the mosque was being built under the rubric of reconquista, rather than interethnic peace-making. Of media there was a plethora, homing in especially on the [late-ousted] heckler and those rare birds who decried land-mark status. TV, print, bloggers. They stayed until at least 4 pm. Afterwards, all those defending the mosque were huddled together outside, comparing notes, assessing the options. Nothing done and no defender speaking appeared to be random. It is not immediately clear, despite the vast preponderance of the public who declaratively denounce establishing this mosque in this sanctified site near the World Trade Center attack, that the mayor, Bloomberg, and upcoming pol, Andrew Cuomo, will vote the public interest and majority. Past history is any guide, both will deliberately ignore the recommendations of the majority for their more narrow interests. these include construction jobs, money for the city, and potential ancillary work attached to hiring once the mosque might be established. It is not clear that workers would be American, that monies accruing would be legal (an investigation is going forward on the outside sources of the millions being proffered for this Cordoba Initiative), or that the staffing in any eventuality would again be American citizens. A vote on the determination of the building status is expected to come in August.
|
|
IRAN GREATEST DANGER TO IRAQ; 3 ARAB HOUSE DEMOLISHED. 19,997 ILLEGAL
HOUSES IGNORED. SAUDI PRINCE WARNS REGIME TO FLEE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 14, 2010. |
|
U.S. FINDS IRAN GREATEST DANGER TO IRAQ Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of the shrinking U.S. expedition in Iraq, says that Iran-backed militias in Iran now pose a greater threat to the military and political security of Iraq than does al-Qaeda. Iran subverts more at the political level than at the military. At present, Iran is using its proxies to gain influence over Iraq. Iraq is having difficulty fashioning a government from elected parliamentary delegates. Some Iraqi leaders have "ties" to Iran. Recent successes in eliminating al-Qaida leaders restrict the insurgency's level of capability, but not its ability to carry out planned raids (Ben Lando, Wall St. J., 7/14/10, A9). Iran's ability to subvert through surrogates exposes President Obama's withdrawal as premature. Those militias must be eradicated, first. But have Iraq leaders with ties to Iran and needed coalition partners the will to do this? Proxy militias are the way Iran gained control over Lebanon and it exerts much control over Hamas and part of Fatah by subsidizing their militias. Iran has had some troops in Iraq and Lebanon. Iran also used Hizbullah and its own experts to commit terrorism in South America. It is working out uranium deals and military arrangements in that continent. Iran has stated its ideology of Persia be damned, its identity is Muslim, it must become the regional hegemon, it wants to destroy Israel, and it wants to seize global leadership from the U.S. and impose its medieval ideology upon the whole world. Therefore, apologists for Iran to assert that Iran poses no danger to the world, because it hasn't invaded other countries for centuries are disingenuous. Turkey's foreign Minister Davutoglu praised Israeli admission of failed intelligence and tactics in dealing with the ship from Turkey. He demands, however, that Israel apologize and submit to an international investigation. He called it criminal of Israel to have attacked a civilian ship in international waters. In Germany, the government seized the assets of a more-or-less German affiliate of IHH, and closed the organization, for having sent millions of dollars to organizations controlled by Hamas. The head of the Turkish IHH said that this blocks humanitarian relief for Gazans. But a German court had ruled in 2004 that charities may not support violence and intolerance and many not donate to the civilian branches of terrorist organizations. A member of the Turkish IHH board denied doing so and denied ties to Turkish IHH (Marc Champion, David Crawford, Wall St. J., 7/14/10, A12). Denial is the radicals' first reaction. The U.S. government is partly responsible for their getting away with much of their deception. The U.S. refuses to define and expose the ideology of radical Muslim terrorism. This ideology permits any deceptive and violent means. Its loose alliances slip by the more formal minded Westerners. It means relying upon unreliable international organizations for action and for investigation. Pres. Bush started to expose the ideology, but gave up, probably from a combination of partisan harassment that blocked his nominations and legislation and his own confusion in adhering to State Dept. backing of certain terrorists in the Palestinian Authority. This is a case of anti-Zionist State Dept. officials harming U.S. national security by assisting a branch of radical Islam against an ally, as if jihad were not global. As the three musketeers said, it is "all for one and one for all." As explained weeks ago in my series on the flotilla, international law permits enforcement of an embargo just outside territorial waters, to prevent greater confrontation in territorial waters. The boats preparing to disembark from Gaza to meet the flotilla would have posed just such a predicament. Therefore, enforcement was legal. To call "civilian" a ship that had martyrdom-seeking Islamists aboard, spoiling for a fight and prepared for it, is misleading. What was Israel's intelligence lapse, whose admission Davutoglu praises? Primarily, it failed to discover that violent extremists were aboard. But they were, Turkey permitted them aboard, and therefore, Israel would be entitled to ask Turkey for the apology. However, Israel does not want to provide grist for PM Erdogan's demagogic mill.
LIBYA JOINS TURKEY IN ANTI-ISRAEL DEMAGOGUERY
Why is a Libyan-run ship now attempting to run the Israeli blockade of Gaza port, bearing food that Israel regularly lets through its own port, after inspecting it? The Intelligence and Terror Information Center, in Israel, believes it has figured out why. Like the ship loaded in Turkey, radical Muslim demagogues challenge the embargo not for humanitarian purposes — by definition, radical Muslims are inhumane. Of course, one reason is to gain for Hamas the ability to bring in heavy weapons for waging war. That is far from humane. More importantly, the ship sponsors challenge the embargo to ride the wave of ensuing publicity to gain Muslim popularity. Turkey's Erdogan succeeded in doing so. Now Gaddafi is trying the same (IMRA, 7/14/10). What makes it popular? Do the Muslim masses favor anything that assists any Muslims against any non-Muslims regardless of merit? Perhaps, but the emotions stirred may depend upon how the issue is presented. The Muslim public has not yet caught on to their leaders' routine, deceptive rabble-rousing of them. Consider the decades of the old canard that "the Jews" are plotting to tear down the mosque on the Temple Mount and have done much toi undermine it. What does that tell us about the supposed moderate Muslim majority? Defying Israel is a tactic that Arab leaders have used for decades, to boost their popularity. What does that tell us about the supposed moderate Muslim majority desire for peace? Look how readily Turks were changed from sober and constructive to saber-rattling and destructive! This is disturbing, especially to those of us trying to distinguish between radical and moderate Muslims.
EU, U.S. PROTEST DEMOLITION OF 3 ILLEGAL HOUSES IN JERUSALEM, OF ARABS' 20,000 
The City said that the demolished houses were vacant. Local Arabs said that two had been occupied. The State Dept. objected to the demolition on the grounds that it "undermines trust." The European Union's European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso objected on the grounds that demolishing Arabs' houses and erecting Jewish ones in Jerusalem contravenes international law and prevents a "two-state solution." (Arutz-7, 7/14/10). The answer for the Mayor is that PM Netanyahu talks tough and acts weak, as if a toady for the U.S. that pressures him. The U.S. never has explained what it means, "undermines trust." Actually, who can trust a government that does not enforce its own laws? Why should Israel have to earn the trust of jihadists who commit aggression, break their peace agreements, and seek to destroy Israel? Why should Israel trust them? Why should Israel trust the U.S., which is party to those agreements and does not object to Arab violations of them? Likewise, the EU has not explained why Arabs are entitled to steal public land set aside for public immunity, but Jews are not allowed to erect houses on land they own. The EU might say international law opposes a country that acquired land in war from transferring its citizens to that "occupied" land. Occupied from whom? There was no sovereignty there. Can't say it belongs to the Arabs. Israel annexed it, as it has the right to do as primary heir to the Mandate and to protect against further aggression. Nor is Israel transferring its citizens there, they build on their own. Nor is what Israel does what the Geneva Convention was devised to prevent — ousting and displacing an occupied population with one's own. Nobody is ousted when Jews buy land. So long as the Arabs are jihadists, there is no solution except a Zionist one. The Palestinian Authority does not want a "two-state solution." Abbas refuses to ever recognize Jewish statehood, but demands sovereignty for Muslim Arabs as such. He wants the right to bar Jews from his state, and also the right to flood Israel with Arabs. The Arabs would drive out the Jews. That is his purpose. An anti-Zionist reader suggests a single state. He contends that such a state would have no strife, all would be equal. That is the most unrealistic Idea of all. No Arab state treats minorities equally. Half the Israeli Jews had to flee from persecution in Arab states. Arab states and Palestinian Arabs tried to dispossess and exterminate the Jews of Israel. Abbas' ideology, in which he indoctrinates his people, holds that Israel belongs to the Arabs and the Muslims should kill the Jews. In short, anti-Zionism favors apartheid and amounts to genocide.
PALESTINIAN ARABS TRY TO RAPE FEMALE ANTI-ZIONISTS Palestinian Arabs try to rape female anti-Zionists and cover up the crimes by intimidating people who might complain. Apparently the women dress too revealingly for Arab male self-control. Israeli police had just released Omar Aladdin from prison for terrorism. He joined one of the weekly violent attacks on Israel's security fence by foreign anarchists, Israeli leftists, and Palestinian Arabs. Mr. Aladdin then pretended that he was fleeing from Israeli security forces. Some anarchist women hid him in their room. He tried to rape one, a Muslim woman named Fegin (names authentic). Why does Israel let into the country and into the Territories foreign anarchists who have come just for sedition, often violent? (Prof. Steven Plaut, 7/14/10.) Earlier articles have identified Israeli radicals as either Islamists or as Far Left Jews who distort their country's history, endorse terrorism, stone their own troops, and suggest boycotting Israel. Psychotic. An anti-Zionist reader ignores those actual radicals in order to accuse Zionists of being radical. He claims most Jews are not pro-Zionists. Are they lying to pollsters whom they tell the favor Israel being a Jewish state? Even most of the leftist parties in Israel depend on Zionist votes, so they claim they can maintain national security — as Rabin, Barak, and Sharon falsely promised. It is not radical to want to preserve one's national heritage and homeland, which is what Zionists want. It is radical to want to surrender one's people to jihadists who would just as soon murder them as dispossess them. Anti-Zionists toss around epithets for the sake of throwing mud. They ignore the issues presented them. For example, some of today's articles presented a number of facts and interpretations. Several readers call the articles names, but did not show anything wrong with them. They do not seek dialog, they just want to denounce. P.S.: I did not mean to suggest that the Arabs discriminate in favor of female anti-Zionists. They are equal opportunity rapists, not caring about politics, gender, or age. Rape, being a form of aggression, has been attempted against Jewish girls in Hebron. Some far leftist at an Israel university wrote a paper denouncing Israeli soldiers as racist for not raping Arab women. She accused the soldiers of feeling they are too good for the Arab women. Evidence? None, an attempt to gather evidence would disqualify her theory. Now are these leftist Israelis crazy radicals or are Zionists, who love their homeland? And if the Zionists are crazy for it, what about Palestinian Arabs who deny the area's Jewish history, claim an ancient history there that they do not have, and will kill people for exclusive possession of it for religious reasons? Our anti-Zionist reader does not object to jihadists' exclusive claims and even closes his eyes to their existence.
IDF VIDEO STIRS CONTROVERSY OVER HEBRON Using public dancers among their troops, the IDF made an educational video about Hebron that has stirred controversy from the Left. The troops danced on the main thoroughfare in the Israeli zone of Hebron. They were positioned above the ancient Jewish cemetery restored from Jordanian army desecration. The cemetery marks the 67 victims of an Arab pogrom, which British troops did nothing to halt, and of more recent murderers from the Palestinian Authority, who violate their peace agreements. The Wye arrangement completely bars Jews from 97% of the city and lets Arab traffic through the remaining 3%. The Arab zone has a modern, new market that is prospering. Since the Arabs continue trying to murder the Jews, Israeli administrators had to institute some security measures to protect Jews in the 3%. Leftists complained that the IDF imposes on people, making children go through metal detectors and adults go through screening, keeping Arab traffic sparse. Actually, the film was made at 4:30, when most of the Arabs were in mosque. Hence, little Arab presence at that time. Anti-Zionist critics call this self-protection from bigoted murderers "apartheid," but the apartheid is all the Arabs', whose attempted murder and dispossession reflects their unwillingness to live with Jews (Hebron Jewish Community, 7/14/10). An anti-Zionist critic also called a prior article's description of the demolition of a few Illegal Arab houses in Jerusalem, "apartheid." (See above: EU-US-protest demolition of 3 illegal houses.) Demolition of illegal houses and not of legal houses obviously is not apartheid. But the Arab, EU, and U.S. objection to Jewish construction there and not to illegal Arab construction is discriminatory. The article showed there is no valid objection to Jewish building. More important, the article explained that Jews were living in the same areas as Arabs, both in Arab states and in the Mandate, until the Arab states drove most of their Jews out and the Arab states and Palestinian Arabs tried to drive out and even exterminate the Jews of Israel. Now that is apartheid! Since I thus proved the danger of a joint state, for the anti-Zionist reader to call the Jewish desire for self-determination apartheid is to support the Muslim Arab desire for apartheid by dispossession and extermination.
NY TIMES GLIMPSE OF LIFE IN GAZA 
Here are some selections, with my comments in ellipses, about a glimpse of life in Gaza afforded by the New York Times. Dreary it is. Question is why. The journalists refer to "the 1948 war that created Israel." [The war did not create Israel. The UN General Assembly recognized the Jewish right to declare independence, and it did. The war was an Arab attempt to squelch Jewish sovereignty, to dispossess and loot the Jews, and, as boasted, to kill them off. The Arabs wanted exclusive control over the country, the Zionists did not insist on the same for themselves. The NY Times habitually phrases historical background so as to let the Arabs off the hook for their aggression and to imply that the Jews should be on the hook.] "There are plenty of things to buy in Gaza." The problem is welfare instead of jobs and not much to do in leisure time. One of the stated reasons for lack of work is that Abbas' Palestinian Authority pays civil servants not to work, lest that seem to recognize Hamas rule. [Hamas is too lawless for business to thrive as much as it might. UNRWA spent a fortune keeping Palestinian Arabs in a state of welfare dependency. A growing problem with leisure time is that medieval-minded Islamists blow up music stores, churches, UNRWA children's camps, and some other forms of recreation.] The biggest problems are the blockade and factional rivalry. [The reporters identify who is imposing the blockade, but not that it is a reaction to Hamas' movement of terrorists and arms. That puts the onus of the blockade unfairly on Israel and Egypt, instead of on Hamas.] John Ging, head of UNRWA in Gaza, attributes the personal hardship and industrial constriction from a shortage of electricity to Hamas-Fatah rivalry. When they don't pay for electricity, they don't get it. "...Hamas took over full control by force three years ago, a year after it won an election." [Hamas won the legislative branch not by so many votes but by the electoral system that gave it disproportionate representation. It did not win the executive branch. It has not held an election since. Neither has Abbas.] As a result of the three-week war, children in Gaza have psychological disturbances, particularly bed-wetting. [So do Israeli children, from having to run and take shelter from rockets. I have not seen a NY Times story on that, but perhaps missed it.] It is difficult to tell from the article what the people think. Some reflexively blame Israel for their problems. Some blame Hamas, for seizing an Israeli soldier, an act which led to the blockade. They also blame Fatah, for its inadequacies (Michael Slackman, Ethan Bronner, 7/14/10, A1). I find the report fairer than usual. It missed a major problem caused by both factions. Arafat converted foreign aid into a bloated bureaucracy and military, dependent upon him. He and his aids stole much of the foreign aid. Hamas spends money on war. They could have made peace and built up their economy.
RUSSIA CRITICAL OF IRAN, CLOSER TO U.S.? According to Agence France Presse, Russia now shares the U.S. opinion that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons and is taking a harder line on Iran. Russia also has been moving closer to the U.S. on various issues (IMRA, 7/14/10). According to the Wall St. Journal, however, Russia's line on Iran is not hard and Russia has not moved closer to the U.S.. Instead, Obama has appeased Russia in several key areas of nuclear weaponry and regional hegemony. Russia has outfoxed Obama and probably has more contempt for the U.S. now. Russia is bringing Iran's nuclear plant on line soon. No hard line on that.
SAUDI PRINCE WARNS REGIME TO FLEE BEFORE THEIR HEADS ARE CUT OFF From exile, Prince Turki bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud warned his fellow princes that their reign was untenable; they had better flee before the people cut off their heads. His letter is not available to the public, but its authenticity is implied by official Saudi denunciation of it. He is not warning about al-Qaida, but about the Saudi economy being unsustainable. Forbes Magazine explains why. Saudi Arabia is the pre-eminent extractor of oil, but for how long? It recently boosted oil extraction capability, but has discovered no new oil fields since the 1970s. Its reserves may be shrinking significantly. Who knows what its reserves really are? The government keeps foreign surveyors out. It may exaggerate volume in order to inflate prestige. The 4,000 princes take a telling toll on national wealth, at tens of thousands of dollars a month, each. They and their families number 30,000 souls, but polygamy may boost that to 60,000 in 10 years.
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
SEND US YOUR TIRED, YOUR POOR, YOUR ANTI-FENCE ANARCHO-FASCISTS YEARNING TO BE FREE
Posted by Steven Plaut, July 14, 2010. |
|
As you know, Israel is awash with Western anti-Semites who are foolishly allowed by the Israeli government to enter the country. Once here they join the violent hooligans from Israel and abroad who attempt to sabotage Israel's security fence/wall each week, while violently attacking Israeli soldiers and police. The same pusillanimous government orders the police to coddle the anti-fence stormtroopers treats them with kid gloves. Until now I was definitely opposed to allowing these bimbos and thugs into Israel. But I must say that today I am having second thoughts. On re-consideration, perhaps there IS some benefit in allowing the "anarcho-fascists" and the "solidarity" protesters to come and riot in Israel against the fence, now that they are being raped by Palestinian "activists." Haaretz today (July 14) reports that our peace partners in
the Palestinian Authority are trying to cover up the attempted rape of
a Western anti-fence "anarchist" protester by an upstanding
Palestinian opponent of the occupation. The rapist is named (I am not
making this up) Omar Aladdin, from a village near Bethlehem. The story
in Hebrew is here: It seems that Aladdin was foolishly released by Israel from being hosted in one of its establishments for convicted terrorists. Like in the Sopranos, his first thought on leaving prison was to get himself some female anatomy, and he did not seek it in the form of a genie djinn inside a bottle. He told a group of Western gyno-anarchists rooming in his village that he needed to be hidden from the Israeli police. So they decided to offer him accommodations in their village hostel rooms. Now I must tell you that way back in my bachelor days I tried to come up with imaginative one-liners, generally unsuccessfully, that could get me into the living quarters and the trousers of pretty young anarchist women, but I never was clever enough to come up with "The Shin Bet is after me!" Anyways, it worked. And in the middle of the night young Aladdin decided to rape the American Moslem girl of the bunch. The peaceniks of the Palestinian Authority then threatened all sorts of unpleasant consequences to young Fegin if she attempted to press charges or publicize the attempted rape. Haaretz adds that this is NOT the first rape or attempted rape of Western gyno-anarchists by Palestinian progressives opposed to the occupation. The homes in the villages where the "Solidarity" babes spend the night before throwing rocks at the Jews attract large numbers of horny Palestinian villagers, who rarely get to see the female form when it is not being hidden behind bulky robes and scarves. Me? I say let's import whole bus loads of anarchist anti-Semitic women and send them out to the Palestinian villages in thong bikinis!! Ditto for all the women on the Gaza flotilla ships. Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist,
a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author
of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and
satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic
community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is
|
|
ONLINE ISLAM MAGAZINE TEACHES BOMB-MAKING SKILLS, TARGETS ANYONE INVOLVED IN "DRAW MOHAMMED DAY"
Posted by Jewish Internet Defense Force, July 13, 2010. |
|
This was written by W.G. Dunlop, AFP. It is archived at
|
|
If you have ever wondered how to make a bomb at home, what to pack for jihad, or how to communicate in encrypted messages, a new English-language Al-Qaeda magazine has the answers. The first edition of Yemen-based Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's (AQAP) Inspire magazine was released on Sunday, according to SITE Intelligence, a US service that monitors Islamist websites. Inspire — a 67-page publication provided by SITE from jihadist forums that are sometimes password-protected or otherwise difficult to access — appears to have been designed with care. The magazine, which is packed with sleek pictures of Al-Qaeda
leaders and bright graphics, can also be viewed on the popular online
document-sharing website Scribd at:
Its cover features an image of a silhouetted man with a rifle under the headline "May Our Souls Be Sacrificed For You!," an article attributed to radical US-Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. With article titles such as "Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom" by the "The AQ Chef," or a packing list included in "What to Expect in Jihad," parts of the magazine have a friendly, if extremist, scouting manual feel. But despite its sometimes-friendly tone and snazzy layout, its intent is, very literally, deadly serious. The "Make a Bomb" article notes that a device made in "one or two days could be ready to kill at least ten people," while one made in a month "could kill tens of people." The article, which addresses "Muslims in America and Europe," then details the construction of an explosive device using sugar, crushed match heads, a pipe, a Christmas tree-type light, a battery and a clock. It includes images of the different steps. The aim, according to "The AQ Chef," is "conveying to you our military training right into your kitchen, to relieve you of the difficulty of travelling to us." The instructions appear in a section entitled "Open Source Jihad," which is described as "a manual for those who loath the tyrants." "What to Expect in Jihad" offers advice for those who decide to take the fight abroad. "When coming to any land of jihad, it is important to be able to speak the local language fluently," the article advises. It also suggests that would-be mujahedeen (holy warriors) bring a friend with them, and that they learn as much as possible about local culture before travelling. The article also offers packing advice, saying that, "When on jihad, one has to bear in mind that they will have to pack light." It goes on to recommend that mujahedeen bring a "well-built backpack," several pairs of weather-appropriate clothes, "body-cleansing items" and "flexible boots." Items such as computers and MP3 players can also be brought along. The article warns, however, that cell phones with SIM cards in place can be "dangerous," and, along with cameras, should not be used without permission. Religious books make up most of the section on reading material to bring. In another article, the magazine provides instructions on sending and receiving encrypted messages using a computer programme called "Asrar al-Mujahedeen," or Secrets of the Mujahedeen. "Spies are actively paying attention to... emails, especially if you are known to be jihadi-minded," the article says. Thus, the programme is a better option. It also notes that "the enemy" has created a knock-off Asrar programme meant to monitor jihadi correspondence, and advises users to perform an authenticity check. Among various other sections are a poem praising Omar Faruk Abdulmutallab, who is accused of trying to blow up a US airliner on December 25, and transcripts of previous messages from bin Laden and his number two Ayman al-Zawahiri. The magazine also contains what it says is an interview with AQAP leader Nasser al-Wahaishi, and the article attributed to Awlaki, which is on the controversy surrounding cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. That article argues for the killing of anyone who defames the prophet, especially those involved in the "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day," which was satirically proposed by a Seattle-based cartoonist. "The large number of ('Draw Mohammed') participants makes it easier for us because there are many targets to choose from," the article says.
The Jewish Defense League promotes Jewish identity and Jewish rights. An activist organization, it was founded in 1968 by Rabbi Meir Kahane, HY"D. It continues to confront the all too real dangers presented by the white supremacy, neo-nazi and Islamic fascists. Contact them at jdlnews@jdl.org.il |
|
FROM ISRAEL: THE GOOD AND THE BAD
Posted by Arlene Kushner, July 13, 2010. |
|
It's helpful sometimes to start with positive news. We should never think that it's all bad. The Jerusalem District Planning and Construction Committee has approved the construction of 32 new units in Pisgat Ze'ev, which is an eastern Jerusalem neighborhood over the Green Line. This decision was delayed for weeks because of the visit of Netanyahu to Washington — to avoid charges of sabotaging his meeting with the president. Now it is said that construction can begin immediately. The 32 units represent just a small part of a larger project of 220 units that is in the works. Another 48 units are expected to be approved next week. According to YNet, Attorney Elisha Peleg, a member of the committee and head of the Likud faction at the Jerusalem municipality, has said, "We will continue to build Jerusalem in all of its neighborhoods, without political considerations, in the planning and construction committee." ~~~~~~~~~~ Of course, the furor has already begun, with PA officials claiming that we're destroying chances of peace, etc. etc. Especially in light of Netanyahu's recent comment on Jerusalem, we must hope that the municipality stands strong. ~~~~~~~~~~ The latest not-so-good news comes from the PA side: Reportedly, Abbas might reconsider and come to the table for direct negotiations after all. This will be determined after Mitchell's next visit, which is to take place soon. It is quite clear — but I feel the need to make this explicit — that a promise by Israel to make such gestures as taking down some checkpoints is not what would be bringing the PA back to the table. Hardly. PA officials are saying they've now had "direct assurances" from Obama. Exactly what those assurances are is left unsaid, but they are claiming that the president briefed them after his meeting with Netanyahu. If this is true, it is not exactly surprising, but would be MOST unsettling. We still don't know what Netanyahu promised Obama — and there is certainly no reason whatsoever to trust the president when he offers conciliatory words regarding his deep and abiding concern for Israel. But I wonder if there is not something additional going on. For Netanyahu met Obama a week ago. Would the PA have first been briefed now? On Saturday, three days after that meeting, Abbas was still saying there was no reason to go to direct talks. Obama is undoubtedly applying a great deal of pressure. It would be the style of PA officials, when pressed, to make it appear that they weren't conceding anything, but had been "given" something. ~~~~~~~~~~ The PA position, which really hasn't changed, is that before they go into direct talks they want answers on whether Israel will be willing to freeze construction (after September) in Judea and Samaria, and eastern Jerusalem. This is where we come smack up against the announcement regarding building in Pisgat Ze'ev. I must assume that if Netanyahu had made a commitment to Obama regarding no building in eastern Jerusalem, he would act now to stop the building. Whether or not it actually moves ahead is not an insignificant matter. The PA, additionally, wants to know if Israel will commit to recognizing the pre-'67 line as the future border for a Palestinian state. ~~~~~~~~~~ It may be that PA officials are simply posturing to appease Obama, and that they intend to blame Israel for lack of cooperation and refuse to come to the table. The blame game works both ways. What is certain is that — no matter if they sit at the table — no deal will be reached. Quite simply, if Abbas wishes to live (and I mean this literally) and perhaps retain his position, he cannot accept as his closing deal — which would include "end of conflict" — anything that Israel is prepared to offer. In the end he would walk away as Arafat walked away from the offer made by Ehud Barak in 2000. It is said that no PA leader can accept less than what Arafat demanded. Abbas knows that Hamas waits eagerly to be able to finger him as the sell-out. Perhaps Netanyahu is not intimidated by the possibility of Abbas coming to the table because he is counting on being able to throw up his hands and say, "See, world, I tried my best, but look what I'm up against." ~~~~~~~~~~ There has been talk for many months about a bill that would require a public referendum within 180 days if our government made a decision to cede land in the Golan Heights or Jerusalem. Only the approval of 80 members of Knesset (out of 120) would render the referendum unnecessary. At one point I was quite excited about the possibility that it would pass, thus tying the hands of the prime minister with regard to his ability to unilaterally commit to giving away these significant parts of Israel. There was a great deal of discussion on the issue — including expression of concern about how the referendum would be structured. In December, in the course of a Knesset debate at the time of the first reading of the bill, it became clear that a majority of the members of Knesset supported this. Since then, however, it has been lost in the Ministerial Committee on Legislation. It eludes me as to why it ended back there if there had been one reading: I see it as a delaying tactic. As wise and sensible as such an approach sounds to some of us, it is something of a political hot potato. Those on the left oppose it, because it makes less likely the possibility that the government could concede these areas in the course of "peace" negotiations. That is the point, is it not? The prime minister is also undoubtedly opposed. Whether he would choose to give away these areas or not, he would not want his freedom to do so restricted. (When does a head of state ever willing accept additional limitations placed on his or her power?) ~~~~~~~~~~ Right now, passage of this bill would have a significant impact on the possibility for direct negotiations. The PA would know, up front, it was not going to get any of Jerusalem, even if there had been Obama reassurances. And precisely because of the current political situation, those on the left are saying passage of the bill now would be an affront to Obama — and would undercut Netanyahu's declarations about putting everything on the table for discussion. While those on the right are thinking, "If not now, when?" Enter MK Yariv Levin (Likud), Chair of the Knesset House Committee and one of the bill's initiators. He says he will not wait for a vote in the Ministerial Committee on Legislation, but will soon be bringing the bill to the Knesset for its required second and third readings. If only! You can be sure that I will monitor this carefully. Given various legalities and political pressures, I hardly see this as a done deal. ~~~~~~~~~~ A note of explanation: Some of you may be wondering why this bill wasn't worded to apply to surrendering land in Judea and Samaria as well. While it is fervently to be wished for — that our government should be prevented from facile decisions to give away any part of the land — there is legally a difference between Judea and Samaria on the one hand, and eastern Jerusalem and the Golan on the other. Civil law was applied to all of Jerusalem and to the Golan. These areas are considered to be fully Israeli. Foolishly, the same was not done with Judea and Samaria. These areas remain a theoretically contested region that Israel administers. Thus a bill that restricted giving away any part of these areas would have a tougher time passing in the Knesset. (Certainly a higher percentage of Israelis would consider a surrender of some of Judea and Samaria than would permit giving up of some of Jerusalem.) As I understand it, it was thought wiser to present a narrower bill that has a better chance of passage. In point of fact, if a national referendum prevented surrendering any of Jerusalem, there would be no deal and no surrender of Judea and Samaria anyway. For the PA would accept no deal that didn't include Jerusalem. Finally, I add that there are those today pushing for applying civil law at least to the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria, if not to all of the region. This is past due if only because residents of Judea and Samaria live under different (military) administrative law, when they should be counted as equal to every other Israeli citizen. ~~~~~~~~~~ The investigation of the Turkish flotilla incident by a committee headed by Maj.Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland has ended and the report has been presented. In brief he faulted the IDF for "mistakes," but not failures. He criticized the lack of a back-up plan, and inadequate sharing of intelligence. He said, however, that the commandos conducted themselves with "professionalism, bravery and resourcefulness," and that the actions taken on the ship that resulted in nine deaths were justified.
The Turkish foreign minister, while welcoming this report, says his government will continue to push for an additional international inquiry. ~~~~~~~~~~ Now, hopefully having learned the necessary lessons from the confrontation with the Turkish ship, we are on the edge of confronting a Libyan ship. The ship, known as the Almalthea, which left from Greece over the weekend flying a Moldovian flag, is reportedly being"shadowed" by the Israeli Navy; if it were to continue on course, unimpeded, it would reach Gaza tomorrow. Oue navy in touch with the ship; the message that has been delivered is if it does not change course by midnight tonight and head for El-Arish, Egypt, it will be intercepted. Allegedly, the ship is carrying 2,000 tons of food and medicine, under the auspices of a charity chaired by the son of Muammar Gaddafi. But there are no limits to the amount of food and medicine that Israel would permit into Gaza via land crossings. Carrying these goods by sea is an exercise in futility, unless the intention is simply to break the blockade. Once unloaded in Egypt and inspected, all humanitarian goods would be transferred to Gaza. ~~~~~~~~~~ It should be worth your while to read JINSA Report 1005, "The President's Tin Ear." This examines the "disconnect [on Obama's part] between words, attitudes, facts and policies that makes a lot of people — not just Jews, not just Israelis — anxious."
~~~~~~~~~~ Brigitte Gabriel — an American journalist with Christian Lebanese roots and founder of ACT! for America — has written a stunning response to journalist Helen Thomas, in which she documents Jewish rights to the land better than many Jews might be able to do it:
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
THEY HATE EACH OTHER BADLY; MUST ISRAEL ARREST THE US SPIES?; ISRAEL NEVER GETS A FAIR SHAKE
Posted by Steven Shamrak, July 13, 2010. |
|
They Hate Each Other Badly! If they treat their Muslim Brothers this way, what attitude to ward Christians, Jews and other infidels would you expect from expanding militant Islam? After Israel you are next! July 1, 2010 — At least 35 people have been killed and at least 175 people injured by suicide bombers in a Sufi Shrine in Lahore, Pakistan. Both Sunni and Shiite Muslims worship at the shrine, which holds the remains of Abul Hassan Ali Hajvery, a Persian Sufi. July 8, 2010 — A string of attacks against Shiite pilgrims in the past three days killed 70 people in Baghdad. (Shiite Muslims, like Hezbollah in Lebanon, have been doing and will do again the same to Sunni and other Muslim minorities!) July 9, 2010 — At least 15 people were killed on Thursday by bombs targeting the hundreds of thousands of pilgrims who defied violence to take part in the final day of a Shia religious holiday in Baghdad's Kadhimiya district. July 9, 2010 — A suicide bomber on a motorcycle struck outside a government office on Friday in a tribal region where Pakistan's army has fought the Taliban, killing at least 48 people and wounding around 80. You have your Chance NOW — Don't Blame Israel Later! In an in an official letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, Israeli Ambassador to the UN Gabriela Shalev requested the international: "Israel calls upon the international community to exert its influence on the government of Libya to demonstrate responsibility and prevent the ship from departing to the Gaza Strip." "Israel reserves the right under international law to prevent this ship from violating the existing naval blockade on the Gaza Strip," Shalev told Ban Ki Moon. Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak Almost 2 million Haitians are still homeless! But the UN and the 'humanistic' international press are only concerned and preoccupied with terror infested, artificially invented so-called Palestinians! They Hate Everything — Even World Cup. Terrorists bomb crowds watching World Cup match, murdering 64. Police suspect an Al-Qaeda-linked Somali group. The Blackmailer's Paradox. This case is called "The Blackmailer's Paradox" in game theory. The paradox is that the rational (Israel) is forced to behave irrationally by definition... The relationship between Israel and the Arab countries is conducted along the lines of this paradox. At each stage of negotiation, the Arabs present impossible, unacceptable starting positions. They act sure of themselves and as if they totally believe in what they are asking for, and make it clear to Israel that there is no chance of their backing down. Even Arabs cannot live with a Nuclear Iran. The United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States, Yousef Al-Otaiba, said on Tuesday that the benefits of bombing Iran's nuclear sites eclipse the short-term costs. Islamic Terror Closer than You Think. Mexican authorities succeeded in preventing Hizbullah from opening a terrorist base in South America and the United States. Hizbullah planned to draft Shi'ite Muslims living in Mexico and provide them with training in terror tactics they could use against Western and Israeli targets. Any Excuse will Do! Syrian President Bashar Assad came out four-square behind Turkey in its diplomatic crisis with Israel and warned that Israel undermine stability in the Middle East. "The chances of peace grow slim, and the prospect of war grows." (There is nothing to undermine! For years Turkey and Syria have been in a state of mutual hate over a territorial dispute for a long time, but their hate for Israel is more 'important'!) Quote of the Week: "Israel is our first line of defense in a turbulent region that is constantly at risk of descending into chaos; a region vital to our energy security owing to our over-dependence on Middle Eastern oil; a region that forms the front line in the fight against extremism. If Israel goes down, we all go down. To defend Israel's right to exist in peace, within secure borders, requires a degree of moral and strategic clarity that too often seems to have disappeared in Europe. The United States shows worrying signs of heading in the same direction." — former Spanish Prime Minister Jos9 Mar=a Azna — Why didn't he shock anti-Semitic Europe by this clear admission of truth when he was the Prime Minister of Span? Children of Israel. Israeli twelfth-grader from Beersheba, Eli Goudinevsky, was notified that he won the gold medal of an international competition called The First Step to a Nobel Prize in Physics. Evelyn Jenis from Beersheba, Daniel Achdut from Netanya and Dorin Yerhi from Arad won a silver medal. Attempt to Remove UNIFIL from Lebanon. A southern Lebanon village backed by Hizbullah overpowered United Nations troops on Saturday, seizing weapons and wounding one U.N. soldier. Increasing tension in southern Lebanon, where UNIFIL officers have said they cannot carry out a mandate to keep Hizbullah from being armed, despite UN Resolution 1701 that ended the second Lebanon War. Why not Kurdistan? The Kurds have been have been fighting a 26-year battle to create their own autonomous state in the south-eastern portion of Turkey. Turkish Kurdistan — or Northern Kurdistan — comprises nearly a third of the area of Turkey, including some 17 provinces. As many as 40,000 people have died in the conflict. (No international support for Kurds! No condemnation of Turkey for committing genocide of Kurds and Armenians!) Sanctions are "Pathetic". The latest sanctions against Iran are pathetic, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Saturday, warning Western powers that they would regret their bullying: "They know that there is a sleeping lion in Iran which is waking up and if she wakes up all the relationships in the world will change" (Sanctions will not stop the Iranian nuclear weapon program.) It is Like 'Jenin Massacre' BS Again! The United Nations has cancelled an emergency session intended to discuss the Gaza bound flotilla. Assembly President Ali Abd al Salem Tarkey recently sent a letter to UN member states announcing that he had decided not to call the Assembly to discuss the issue. (There is always a lot of anti-Israel noise, empty rhetoric, but when the know that they are wrong — it is all quietly dropped to avoid embarrassment.) Does Turkey Need UN Assistance? Ben-Dror Yemini of the Maariv newspaper has pointing out that humanitarian conditions in Turkey are actually worse than those in Gaza, the country (as do most of the Muslim inept countries) needs help: "Infant mortality in Gaza is 17.7 per thousand; in Turkey it is 24.8. Life expectancy in Gaza is 73.7, whereas in Turkey it is 72.2" UN Contradicts Itself in Blaming Israel. The IMRA news analysis agency reports that while Hizbullah brags about crippling the UNIFIL peacekeeping force in Lebanon, UN chief Ban Ki-moon blames Israel for "stirring up trouble." (To please Muslim countries — Always blame Israel! This is the main rule of the UN.) They Hate Israel but Love Jewish Medical Care. Hamas sends up to 100 patients a month to Ichilov hospital in Tel Aviv alone. The hospital treats patients from hostile Arab countries as well. Hypocrisy in Action: " Obama Now Says He Courts Muslims to Help Israel..." — Is it a desperate and twisted SPIN before the elections? "Obama urges Israel to seize chance for peace..." — One can't have peace if there is no peace partner! Must Israel Arrest the US Spies to Free Pollard? The largest spy swap between the U.S. and Russia since the Cold War unfolded on Thursday as 10 people accused of spying in suburban America pleaded guilty to conspiracy and were ordered deported to Russia in exchange for the release of four Russian spies. (The 'friend' of Israel is still holding Jonathan Pollard who is serving a life sentence in prison.) True Colours of the 'Peace Partner'. PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas told Arab leaders that the PA is ready to wage war on Israel if the rest of the Arab world does: "If you want war, and if all of you will fight Israel, we are in favour. But the Palestinians will not fight alone because they don't have the ability to do it." (Where is the pressure, rebuke etc... from Obama?) Why Israel Will Never Get a Fair Shake.
"Never again"! It's what the world said after the Holocaust. Fast forward sixty five years and the only thing standing between seven million Jews in Israel and a 2nd Holocaust is their ability to fight for their own survival and the increasingly inconsistent support of the United States (only when it suits this 'friend')... No matter how grave the provocation or how clearly Israel is in the right, the world's judgment is always against Israel. Why? Anti-Semitism: During World War II, with a few exceptions, nations all over Europe couldn't wait to ship their Jewish population off to the gas chamber and undoubtedly... The Have-Nots vs. the Haves: To many people on the Left, the actual facts on the ground are of secondary importance to the identities of the combatants... the "have-nots" are always right simply by virtue of the fact that they're "have-nots." The Israelis are a civilized, prosperous, educated, Western pro-American nation with a modern military up against poor, ignorant, uncivilized savages... Israel's Situation Outside of People's Reality: Most people, especially most Westerners, cannot truly imagine what it's like to be in Israel's position. Despite their fantastic military, Israel is an isolated, postage-stamp-size nation that's only 8 miles across at one point. They are surrounded by enemies, all of whom would like to kill them down to the last child — and they will if the Israelis ever become weak or drop their guard. Additionally, the Israelis are locked in an eternal struggle with genocidal Palestinians who have the support of the world, despite the fact that they have no interest in peace today, tomorrow, or ever if it means living next to Israelis... Colonialism: Today, there's still a deep sense of guilt in Europe about colonialism. They look back at conquering, subjugating, and ruling other nations for profit as a terrible chapter in their history. So, when Western European nations look at Israel, they see... a dark echo of what they believe was one of the most shameful times in their nation's history. Fear of Islam: The West has been completely intimidated by Islam... In Britain, even Catholics are calling for Muslim prayer rooms in Catholic schools. Here in the US, we're building a mosque at Ground Zero... Geopolitics: Yes, Israel is prosperous for its size, but it's a teeny, tiny isolated nation. The simple reality is that if another country has to choose between having a good relationship with Israel and having a good relationship with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, and the rest of its hostile neighbours, it's much more economically rewarding to stand against Israel... The Blame Game: Failing nations around the world often try to gin up anger at scapegoats to distract their citizens from the poor job their rulers are doing. The United States plays this role for many nations. To a lesser extent, so do the British... Do you think the Saudi royal family would rather have people talking about the Palestinians or why that country is still run by a monarchy in the 21st century? Do you think Iran wants people talking about the Palestinians or the fact that their economy is in shambles and the people are ready to revolt? Even if there wasn't a single Middle Eastern leader who was a raving anti-Semite, there would STILL be every incentive to gin up hatred against the Jews. |
|
MIKE GUZOFSKY DISCUSSES THE CHALLENGES OF ADVOCATING TRANSFER OF THE HOSTILE ARABS FROM ISRAEL
Posted by Jewish Activists Network, July 13, 2010. |
|
This week we have Mike Guzofsky from Israel, a former Kach activist. Mike will discuss his experience with Rabbi Meir Kahane and the difficulty they encountered in discussing important positions that impact on Israel's survival. Topics will include:
Please join us, listen and call! Phone number on or off the air: 718-569-0921 For more information contact us at media@jewishactivistnetwork.com
620 on the AM dial (NYC, nearby NJ and parts of LI) and streaming at www.jewishactivistnetwork.com |
|
BARRY RUBIN'S INTERVIEW WITH ZEYNO BARAN ON MODERATE MUSLIMS
Posted by John J. Facino, Sr., July 13, 2010. |
|
This article appeared on the Yid with Lid website:
This is an interview by Barry Rubin with Zeyno Baran, senior fellow of the Hudson Institute and editor of The Other Muslims: Moderate and Secular. (Palgrave-Macmillan), 190 p., $21.60 Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis (Palgrave Macmillan), Conflict and Insurgency in the Contemporary Middle East (Routledge), and editor of the (seventh edition) (Viking-Penguin), The Israel-Arab Reader, the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan), A Chronological History of Terrorism (Sharpe), and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley) Yid with Lid writes: "PajamasMedia published my interview with Zeyno Baran on her book. It is available here. For your convenience I'm including the text here. If you reprint or forward please be sure to credit PajamasMedia." |
|
Barry Rubin: Zeyno, you begin your book with this sentence: "The most important ideological struggle in the world today is within Islam." Can you explain the nature of this struggle and how it is going? Zeyno Baran: This struggle is essentially a Muslim civil war over whose definition of Islam will be accepted as "mainstream": will it be the version of the Islamists (shared by all political-religious radicals, both non-violent and violent) or that of traditional Muslims (cultural, secular, and pious) One will become accepted by a majority of Muslims, and by extension, of non-Muslims. Since the 1970s Islamists have made tremendous headway in this struggle thanks to money from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region; they were thus able to establish institutes and networks all over the world to spread Islamism. Today, many Muslims don't even realize what they believe to be authentic Islam is in fact a primarily political ideology of recent origin. Non-Islamists are still lacking in the financial resources — whether state or private — necessary to organize effectively against the Islamists; this is true as much in the West (the focus of this book) as in Muslim-majority countries. So, in the short term I argue that Islamists will continue to be winning in this struggle. That said, I believe in the longer term both non-Islamist Muslims and non-Muslims will eventually wake up to the realization that Islamism is a serious ideological challenge to universal human rights. Barry Rubin: Precisely what is a "moderate Muslim"? Hasn't that term been subject of a lot of misuse and misunderstanding? Zeyno Baran: You are exactly right — the misuse of the label "moderate Muslim," by Islamist groups operating in the West, has indeed led to major misunderstandings. This is precisely why I used this term in this book — to clear up this misunderstanding and reclaim the term from the Islamists, many of whom represent themselves as "moderates" to Western policy makers. American and European policy makers have accepted as "moderate" people who do not commit violence; to me, however, that is a very narrow definition. An Islamist that participates in the electoral process yet does so with the goal of limiting women's rights or of introducing a sharia regime is not moderate. The contributors to this book are all true moderates — those who fully support both universal human rights and the teachings of the Islamic faith. Being "moderate" does not mean they are not pious, which is another common misunderstanding of the term. Barry Rubin: Why is it wrong to base the definition of a "moderate" Muslim on simply those who don't use violence? Zeyno Baran: The true divide within Islam is not between violence and nonviolence, but between moderation and extremism. Few Muslims resort to violence — but many more share the thinking of the violent extremism. Unless the ideology of Islamism is understood as the root cause of the violence, I don't believe we'll see an end to the terrorism and radicalism among Muslim communities. Moderation has to start with thought; if we are giving a free pass to those with extremist ideologies as "moderates," then the true moderates will continue to be weakened. Barry Rubin: How have the U.S., Canadian, and European governments helped the radicals and hurt the moderates? Zeyno Baran: Western governments, in their desire to "engage with Muslims," have often reached out to well-established Islamist organizations as their "partners". In doing so, these governments did not realize that they were lending legitimacy to these Islamists in the internal struggle against their moderate opponents. With the Islamists being the main "go-to Muslims" for Western governments, it has been much harder for the true moderates to make their voices heard. Barry Rubin: Why are Western media and institutions so easily fooled by radicals, and why do they seem to favor them? Zeyno Baran: I think when Western media and institutions look for "Muslim voices," they automatically gravitate to those who most closely resemble their preconception of what an "authentic" Muslim sounds like — a conception that has, of course, been shaped by Islamist propaganda. In recent years, an "authentic" voice has been one that is opposed to US policies, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that is strongly critical of Israel. Many in the media share these views as well, so it is in some ways a natural fit. The true moderates are often accused of being neo-conservative or "not really Muslim" when they support US policies or express a more balanced view of the state of Israel; these ideas seem to Western journalists and policymakers to be "un-Muslim," as if there were a single Muslim way of thinking! Certainly, the Islamists argue there are certain "Muslim opinions" on some issues — such as the Middle East peace process — but that's because they are trying to establish their own view as the single dominant one. It is as wrong as saying there is a "Christian opinion" on an issue, given the vast range of views held by individual Christians. Barry Rubin: How does assimilation and acculturation work with Muslim immigrants in the West and how should it work? Zeyno Baran: Each country has had different policies and different experiences, but in general, European countries for many decades paid little attention to assimilation; in particular, the UK and the Netherlands followed an openly multiculturalist policy that avoided any mention of assimilation and/or acculturation. This led to Muslim immigrant enclaves being formed in parts of European cities; when an area becomes heavily Islamic, then Islamists come in with their institutions and mosques, and establish themselves as the interlocutors between the immigrant community and Western authorities. Even after many of these governments decided to change their policies and developed programs for increased acculturation, they continued to work with the Islamists, whose ultimate responsibility is not to Muslim immigrants, but to the global Muslim umma (community) as they understand it. Since these "representatives" had no interest whatsoever in promoting the integration and assimilation of European Muslims, this led to frustration on the part of Western governments and societies, which began wondering whether Muslims can ever truly become "Western." In turn, this frustration — directed towards all Muslims, not just the extremists — fostered a sense of anger and victimization on the part of the Muslim immigrants, who felt they would never be accepted as long as they remained Muslim. A better way to ensure social cohesion would be to address the pragmatic needs of Muslim immigrants — jobs, education, equal rights — in accordance with the social norms of the country, with a sensitivity to different religious/cultural backgrounds. In practice, this would mean allowing the establishment of dignified prayer places for Muslims, while not assuming all Muslims go to the mosque all the time, or that the mosque is the only social place for Muslims. There need to be many other places where Muslims can go to socialize with each other and non-Muslims; these will develop naturally if Europeans can move away from characterizing these populations as "Muslim first." Barry Rubin: Has the concept of multiculturalism helped or hurt in this struggle? Zeyno Baran: Despite being born of good intentions, the Western policies of multiculturalism have made it harder for Muslims to become Western. The pendulum of respect for cultural/religious difference has swung too far, and Muslims have been trapped into their Muslim identity as "the other," instead of being assisted in becoming one of "us." One of the recent and most clear examples of this is the wearing of the burqa in the West. For years multiculturalists have looked the other way when seeing women covered from head to toe in a style contrary to most Western norms as well as to Islam itself. Islam simply mandates modesty in dress, which for many women traditionally meant the headscarf, but never the full covering. Yet, until recently, in another unintended consequence of multiculturalism, few Westerners were willing to tackle this issue as they did not want to be seen as intolerant or bigoted. The few that have spoken out have been silenced with threats of being labeled "racist"; thus, intolerable forms of social behavior have continued to the point where they have become acceptable. Barry Rubin: How can Western societies "win over" Muslims without losing their own identity or surrendering to the Islamists? Zeyno Baran: The question is which Muslims? The Islamists would never be won over since their long term goal is to see a world that is ruled with sharia. If Western societies continue to try to judge their success in "winning over Muslims" by giving into Islamist demands, then they'll continue to lose their identity and their basic freedoms. But if Western societies were to side with non-Islamist Muslims, and learn from them how best to counter the short- and long-term goals of the Islamists, then I would say there is a great possibility that the West will not only successfully defend its own values and norms, but also help Muslims usher in a desperately-needed Islamic Renaissance. Barry Rubin: How can moderates justify their interpretations of Islam when they appear to differ with the most important and basic Islamic texts? Zeyno Baran: Many of these texts have been written centuries ago and in a particular context. Many moderates read them recognizing that what may have been a great social advancement in the 8th century cannot be taken literally in the 21st century. Over the centuries, there were many different voices widely debating how to interpret the Qur'an or the hadiths; moderates follow the tradition of those who have used their rationality and interpreted revelation as well as historic developments within their correct context. There are also many moderates who have not read many of the basic Islamic texts; yet they are no less legitimate, because 1) many of the radicals have never read many of these texts either and 2) Islam is not just about the written text but the living tradition. Indeed, for centuries Muslims learned the basics of their religion orally, passing down teachings from one generation to another. The recent radical trend we see among Muslims is due to radicals picking and choosing certain passages from the Qur'an and other key texts, interpreting them in a way to make their case, and then presenting them as the most legitimate interpretations. Again, I'll draw an analogy with Christianity — it is as if saying that only one denomination's interpretation of basic texts is the correct one. Paraphrasing Bernard Lewis, the situation we face within Islam is as if a KKK-controlled state found major sources of oil, and used the money to spread its own version of Islam as the most correct form and the whole world gradually began seeing them as the most authentic voices. Barry Rubin: The Islamists are so well financed and well-organized how can the moderates compete? How can they win? Zeyno Baran: This is the most difficult question. The moderates have not been able to compete and won't be able to compete unless there is help from the West. Theoretically some of the Muslim-majority countries that are threatened by Islamists could help, but in practice they are often too afraid to challenge them for fear of being labeled as "apostates." The West knows from its own history the damage religious extremists cause to societies and the religion itself; they can help the moderates by no longer giving Islamists a free pass while their activists are working to undermine Muslim moderates and Western (or universal) values. They can also help by increasing visibility of the moderates' work, such as those in The Other Muslimswho argue for secular rule using Islam's own texts and history, or those who push for Islamic Renaissance, without which I believe we'll never quite win against the radicals who are increasingly becoming the mainstream. |
|
CORDOBA HOUSE (AKA CORDOBA MOSQUE)
Posted by Ralph Rubinek, July 13, 2010. |
|
You can see why Bloomie, a socialist elitist is advancing on his MAIG hag initiatives. No rational caring human being would want a Nazi meeting hall as a sign of good will to be built in Normandy, it would be a utter outrage. Here building a Mosque at ground zero is of the same mentality of disdain, disrespect and indeed repulsive as souls of our loved ones hover in disbelief. An initial investigation would conclude a pattern of funding and alliances. After interviewing a former Japanese police inspector it was concluded ethnic organized crime and fund raising helps fund terrorism through illicit operations. Our findings were immediately sent to the Bush Justice Department. This nothing new. I ask all of you, did not the Nazi's have an alliance with Islam with front operations right here in the USA? Socialism right or left has no benevolence in practice, today, tomorrow or ever. Its alliances are for one purpose only, divide, create an air of animosity, apathy, disrupt functionality and upon rising up the decadent through revolution, install their most perfect government, one which murders with impunity. Islam and liberalism, perfect together. One recipient responded: I heard this morning Bloomberg say, "It would be unAmerican" for the gov't to investigate the Cordoba House funding, that that's telling people how to pray.
|
|
HALF THE TRUTH THAT'S FIT TO PRINT: FOREIGN MONEY'S INFLUENCE ON ISRAELI POLITICS
Posted by Gerald Steinberg, July 13, 2010. |
|
Israel is a very porous country, in the sense that individuals and organizations, particularly with money, can easily gain influence. This is both a reflection of an open and lively democracy and a remnant of the early Zionist movement, when Jewish philanthropists from the Diaspora, such as the Rothschild and Montefiore families, had central roles and close links with political leaders. In the 1950s and 1960s, David Ben-Gurion and his political machine continued to rely on external donors, including friendly socialist parties, for campaign financing. Following this lead, Menachem Begin and Herut were also supported by their backers. Like other remnants of Zionist politics, foreign funding continues, with unexamined consequences. In this context, the "exposé" of tax-exempt funding for right-wing organizations ("Tax-exempt funds aid settlements in West Bank," The New York Times, July 6) is not surprising. But the authors missed or erased half the story. Based on NGO Monitor's extensive research, the scale of tax-exempt funding from the US for the other side of the spectrum probably exceeds the $20 million average annually reportedly provided to support the settlement agenda. And, as in the case of groups targeted in the Times, radical left grantees push objectives that are also in direct opposition to US government policies. NGO Monitor's research shows how numerous groups that receive tax-exempt donations promote violent demonization, boycotts (illegal under US law) and "one-state" policies that are equivalent to seeking the destruction of Israel. These include Electronic Intifada, ICAHD-US, Friends of Sabeel, the benignly named Middle East Children's Alliance and the Palestinian Right to Return Coalition. The Free Gaza Movement, which sponsored the ships that included violent jihadists from the Turkish IHH organization, tells supporters to send taxdeductible donations through the American Educational Trust. And the International Solidarity Movement receives funding via directed donations to the AJ Muste Memorial Institute and the Middle East Children's Alliance, both of which have tax-exempt status. ISM members regularly violate Israeli law through violent "direct actions," including participation in the recent Free Gaza Flotilla. Powerful Israeli left-wing groups that campaign against settlements also obtain funds in this way and use this money to lobby in the US against the policies of Israel's democratically elected governments. This category includes American Friends of Peace Now, B'Tselem and Ir Amim (which is active in promoting the Palestinian narrative on Jerusalem).
IN ADDITION, dozens of groups on the Israeli left, as well Palestinian counterparts, are funded by US-based mega-donors, such as George Soros's Open Society Institute, the New Israel Fund ($31 million annual budget) and the Ford Foundation. OSI and Ford support Human Rights Watch, with a $40 million annual budget, and a Middle East division that works to "turn Israel into a pariah state," to quote HRW founder Robert Bernstein. Similarly, US donations to Londonbased Amnesty International help to promote the double standards and political warfare targeting Israel, exploiting the moral foundation of human rights. European governments and the EU add tens of millions of dollars annually, often without transparency, to many of these organizations. European money for Israeli opposition groups, such as B'Tselem, Ir Amim, Gisha, the Geneva Initiative, Breaking the Silence and many more, skew the balance and gives the left an advantage that it fails to get through the democratic process. And while the tax exempt donations from the US are transparent, based on voluntary private decisions and spread across the ideological spectrum, European governments funnel tax revenues to a very narrow Israeli political position, often in secrecy and without due process or accountability. In this context, partisan media reports on US tax exemptions for groups that support settlements become part of the Israeli ideological battles. The stakes are very high, and left-wing NGOs are seen as leading the campaign to isolate Israel using allegations of war crimes, as reflected in the Goldstone report on Gaza. Over half of the claims and references in Goldstone's indictment are attributed to 48 of the opposition NGOs, many of which are funded by European governments and tax-exempt donations from the US. In response to growing criticism of these activities, left-wing NGOs and their supporters have launched attacks against ideological enemies. In July 2009, Gush Shalom circulated a confidential memo telling supporters that it "has been engaged recently in the planning, funding and implementation of a legal and public advocacy campaign aimed at blocking foreign funding of illegal settlement activity." And Akiva Eldar, a columnist for Haaretz and involved with NGOs on the left, sent NGO Monitor a series of emails presaging efforts to impair funding for pro-settlement NGOs. Rather than more partisan reports targeting the "pro-settlement" side of the NGO battlefield, a wider analysis and debate on the unique influence of externally funded NGOs in Israel is long overdue. This question needs to be addressed by all sides in the framework of Israel's democratic process. Knesset legislation that fills in the missing gaps in transparency, particularly for secret European funding processes for political NGOs, would be an important first step.
The writer is president of NGO Monitor and professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University.
|
|
ABBAS EULOGIZES MUNICH MASSACRE MASTERMIND
Posted by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, July 13, 2010. |
|
Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has eulogized Abu Dauod, the mastermind of the massacre of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972 and who died Saturday. "He is missed. He was one of the leading figures of Fatah and spent his life in resistance and sincere work as well as physical sacrifice for his people's just causes," said Abbas. Dauod, a former commander of the Fatah party that Abbas now heads, died late Friday night as the age of 73. Abbas' eulogy and praise for the planner of the murders came less than a month after he told American Jewish leaders in Washington that he will work to stop incitement of violence against Jews. Abbas provided the funds for the Munich massacre, according to Dauod. The Black September gang said it received its orders from Fatah, which denied involvement in the massacre. The Munch murder gang consisted of masked terrorists who stormed the apartments where Israeli athletes were staying in the Olympic Village. The terrorists took the athletes as hostages and demanded the release of 200 Arabs from Israeli prisons. By the time the attack was over, the Israeli athletes were killed, along with one German officer and five of the terrorists. Daoud and one other member of the gang survived. The Games continued after several hours. Dauod said in interviews four years ago that he does not regret the massacre. "You can only dream that I would apologize," he said. The Israeli victims were: Moshe Weinberg, wrestling coach, age 33;
Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu is a columnist for Arutz-Sheva, where this article
appeared. It is archived at
|
|
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 13, 2010. |
|
SOMALI JIHADISTS MURDER SCORES IN UGANDA, INCLUDING AN AMERICAN 
ihad strikes in Uganda. Today's New York Times front page shows a Ugandan being treated by a doctor. Today's Wall St. Journal front page features a bloodied American boy. At least 76 others were killed and about as many wounded by a trio of attacks from al Shabaab, an al-Qaida affiliate in Somalia. The terrorists struck on Sunday, where people were watching an outdoor screening of the World Cup. The American was part of a U.S. Christian group helping to build a church. One or two millions Americans a year engage in personal, short-term, foreign aid projects like that. That is what Americans do. Al Shabaab is the organization which several young people in the U.S., of Somalia descent, attempted to go and join. The organization has been wresting much of Somalia from its prior rulers and perhaps committing piracy. Now that it affiliated with al-Qaida, it has expanded its imperial outlook. The organization admitted planning the bombing. Earlier it had threatened to attack countries helping to thwart Islamist take-over of all of Somalia. Uganda sent 6,000 peacekeepers to Somalia. Uganda has been becoming stable, prosperous, and secular. It has a growing middle class, thriving tourism, and newly discovered oil reserves. Now, however, all of East Africa is menaced by Islamists. Uganda has a liberal immigration policy but thousands of illegal Somali aliens (7/13/10). That is jihad — international, depraved in its brutality and picking on innocent civilians, fighting anywhere. If Israel did not exist, jihad would be just as active in all the other countries it can. This is not a movement with a just cause, but a menace to freedom and civilization everywhere. It is time our supposedly bright President learned to say "radical Islam" is the enemy ideology. It is time our anti-Zionists dropped their bigotry and stopped diverting attention and dividing defenders.
AMERICANS SUE AL-JAZEERA IN NEW YORK COURT In New York federal court, 91 Americans, Israelis, and Canadians are suing al-Jazeera TV, the network from Qatar. Plaintiffs were wounded, or lost relatives to rocket fire from Hizbullah in a one-month period of 2006. They seek compensatory and punitive damages from the network, which has an office in New York. What has al-Jazeera to do with it? Plaintiffs allege that al-Jazeera TV crews in Israel violated Israeli military censorship and filmed missile strikes live, in order to help Hizbullah fire more accurately. In other words, they acted as artillery spotters [just as had a fugitive Israeli Arab MK]. Al-Jazeera camera crews repeatedly were detained for their live coverage. Plaintiffs allege that this coverage did improve the rockets' accuracy against civilians. The TV network is not at all objective. In 2001, the U.S. filed a complaint that al-Jazeera slanted its news against American and called Palestinian Arab suicide bombers as "martyrs," as if they were fulfilling a religious duty. In 2002, Professor Khalid al Dakheel of King Saud University stated that: "Al-Jazeera is the mouthpiece of the Arabs. Their coverage is anti-Israelis. Their coverage is anti-Americans." (sic) An Israeli Foreign Ministry representative remarked in 2006 that al-Jazeera is an Arab station presenting the Arab cause as slanted as does Hamas TV. Defense Dept. spokesman Lt. Col. Todd Vician said in 2006, al-Jazeera's daily, biased coverage could persuade people that the U.S. is bad (IMRA, 7/13/10). Israel should have known better than to let al-Jazeera in, in the first place. What excuse did it have for letting the station remain in the country, under attack, after the first time it was caught acting as enemy agents? Why not imprison the crew for abetting terrorism?
U.S. AID TO JORDAN The U.S. is providing $665 million in foreign aid to Jordan this year. Half of it is military (Arutz-7, 7/13/10). Off-the-cuff figures for U.S. aid to Arabs would include $2 billion for Egypt, about $1 billion for the Palestinian Authority, and some funds for the Lebanese Army. The total approaches $4 billion a year, compared with about $3 billion for Israel, mostly military. The U.S. also has spent billions of dollars on Pakistan, which fosters terrorism. The U.S. supposes that the funds it gives the Arabs would be used against radical Muslim aggressors. Those funds, however, easily could be used against Israel, which the U.S. also aids. The Arab recipients mentioned all have been aggressors against Israel. Some are radical Muslims. U.S. aid seems more a result of more bias, logrolling, and unconcern for taxpayers than of cost-benefit analysis.
JEWS MARCH AROUND JERUSALEM'S TEMPLE MOUNT 
Every month, about 2,000 — 3,000 Jews march around the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, to signify its key importance to Judaism and the Jewish people. This month it was different. The crowd still sang and danced, and remained non-violent. But there were about 10,000. Why the surge? Why now? For one thing, it was the 9th of Av, the anniversary of the destruction of the First Temple, about 2,500 years ago, the destruction of the Second Temple, almost 2,000 years ago, the expulsions of the Jews from Spain and England, and other catastrophes. Another reason, according to National Union Knesset Member Uri Ariel, is deterioration in security and the increasing discrimination against Jews in Jerusalem." His speech described the 'surrender of Jerusalem to Arabs," the worsening security in several Jewish neighborhoods, disturbances by anarchists, and the discrimination by police who severely restrict the ability of Jews to ascend the Temple Mount." For example, said Jerusalem council member Aryeh King, "...the Temple Mount site is closed to Jews most of the time while police allow non-Jewish tourists to freely visit the holy site." The source explains, "Israel accepts Muslim rules that forbid a Jew from praying out loud or even carrying a prayer book when ascending the Temple Mount." (Arutz-7, 7/13/10). Judging from the conventional media, it does not seem as if the Jewish people are on the defensive in Jerusalem, the rest of Israel, and the Territories. The media gives the impression of Jews being aggressive. Actually, Israel has let the illegal Muslim Waqf construction continue and to destroy many ancient Jewish artifacts in the Temple Mount, while the government boasts of upholding law and order. When an Israeli court issues orders to tear down a few illegal Arab houses, the media embarrasses Israel over it. The government pulls most of the way back. And thousands of illegal houses stand. By the same token, the world media condemns Israel for enforcing the rights of Jewish owners to their property on which Arabs squat. Arabs attack Israeli farmers, who get prosecuted if they defend themselves with firearms. The police do not protect Jewish farmers from extensive rustling. Arabs turn around and make false accusations of their own crops being destroyed. Some of the fraudulent claims about olive trees were disproved. Foreign accusers accept without checking false claims that Arabs' land is being stolen, and ignore the thousands of Arab houses being built on usurped land.
HAS NEW YORK MEGA-MOSQUE PROJECT TERRORIST TIES? 
Has the project to build a mega-mosque 600 feet from Ground Zero in New York terrorist ties? Mayor Bloomberg refuses to investigate, just approves the project. Republic candidate for Governor, Rick Lazio says that the people have a right to know who is behind the mosque project. Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer says that the imam behind the project has ties to the radicals who attacked the Israeli sailors intercepting the blockade runners. "Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a key figure in Malaysian-based Perdana Global Peace Organization, according to its website. Perdana is the single biggest donor ($366,000) so far to the Free Gaza Movement, a key organizer of the" flotilla. Apparently the last resort of opponents of the project is to persuade the Landmarks Commission to designate as a landmark the 152-year-old synagogue standing on what would be the construction site (Arutz-7,7/13/10). Why does the Mayor oppose investigating who is behind this project? He does seem to approve every big project. People involved in 9/11 have strong feeling about this, but 600 feet is six city blocks. That is not the same as being on or adjacent to the site.
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION CRITICIZED ON COUNTER-TERRORISM 
The Obama administration has stepped up efforts against international terrorism by: (1) Counter-terrorist military action; and (2) Working with Muslim groups. The Administration is criticized by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy for stepping down efforts to identify international terrorism [as an ideology of whom, to do what, where, and why]. The idea is that one cannot properly fight what one does not define. The Institute's report suggests fighting the ideology that motivates al-Qaida. The U.S. does not do well in dealing with ideology. Terror leaders "play into the false perception that they are religious leaders defending a holy cause, when in fact they are nothing more than murderers, including the murder of thousands upon thousands of Muslims," said top administration counterterror deputy John Brennan during a May 24 speech explaining the shift." The Administration does not want to mention religion, lest it be thought to be anti-Muslim. The Institute's counter-terrorism experts suggest that the Administration carefully differentiate the radicals in violent jihad from mainstream Islam, so Muslims need not suspect the U.S. of targeting them. The Administration's deputy on counter-terrorism, John Brennan, said that "describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie — propagated by al-Qaida and its affiliates to justify terrorism — that the United States is somehow at war against Islam." He said that terrorist leaders "play into the false perception that they are religious leaders defending a holy cause, when in fact they are nothing more than murderers, including the murder of thousands upon thousands of Muslims." The Institute's report suggests empowering opponents of the radicals (CNS News by Lolita C. Baldor, Association Press, 7/13/10) Let the Administration report on the results of working with Muslim groups and identify the groups! Sometimes our government and Britain's have consulted the very groups that wage jihad via propaganda, fund raising, and attacking our counter-terrorism policies. Problem is, even though the U.S. is allied with Muslim governments to help them against the terrorists, Muslims tend only to see that Yanks are fighting Muslims, not that Yanks are saving other Muslims. How do we make a distinction that Muslims would accept? Our leaders have tried to differentiate, but their distinction was not well accepted. This makes it seem as if the moderates do not themselves engage in combat, but sympathize with the radicals, who do. But those do kill Muslims. Where the radicals have displayed their brutality to fellow Muslims, those Muslims reject the radicals. The trick is to get the mainstream Muslims to reject the radicals all over, all at once. This article makes the distinction and it talks about countering the radicals, not hating anybody. What sense do readers make who accuse my articles of disseminating hatred against Islam?
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
HAMAS SENDS PATIENTS TO ISRAEL FOR CARE
Posted by Sheridan Neimark, July 13, 2010. |
|
This was written by Maayana Miskin and it appeared in the Arutz-7 (www.inn.com). |
|
Hamas Sends Patients to Israel Ichilov hospital in Tel Aviv treats up to 100 patients a month from Gaza, and often Hamas takes the role of middleman between Gaza residents and the Israeli hospital, Ichilov Director Professor Gabi Barabash said Thursday. Barabash spoke to Deputy Minister Ayoub Kara, a resident of the Druze village of Dalyat El Carmel near Haifa, who was touring the hospital and viewing its care for foreign Arab patients. In addition to caring for patients from Gaza, the Ichilov staff treats many citizens of foreign Arab countries, including those that have no diplomatic ties with Israel. They all receive dedicated care, and the relatives who accompany them are provided with free food and a place to stay, Barabash said. Kara praised the hospital's care at the end of the tour. Ichilov treats all of its patients equally, he said, but it is not the only one, and hospitals throughout the country send hundreds of people home to Gaza in good health each month after they arrived in Israel suffering from serious ailments. He condemned Hamas for benefiting from the arrangement while giving nothing in return. "The time has come for Hamas to give us something small in return," he said, "to release a single son of ours, who has been held for four years with no medical care, in exchange for the hundreds of people whose lives Israel saves every month." Kara called on Arab countries to take action: "I call on those Arab countries that are aware of how much we give them when it comes to medicine to call for Gilad Shalit's release as well." Shalit's release would "make the peace talks much more meaningful," he added.
|
|
LEST WE FORGET
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, July 13, 2010. |
|
Should BP (British Petroleum) finally seal the Gulf of Mexico run-a-way blown-out Deep Horizon Well, guess who will take the credit? Be assured that President Barack Hussein Obama and his gang of propagandists will instantly claim that it was "His" problem-solvers, "His" pressure on BP that produced results. The facts speak otherwise. Obama was late in showing any interest. His appointees — like Janet Napolitano and Ken Salazar demonstrated that they were dumber than a sack of rocks as they flew over the Gulf to "inspect" the floating oil. Neither Obama nor his appointees showed any imagination or leadership and they dragged their feet on getting efficient oil skimmers into the water. They ignored the offers of international assistance for better skimmers because of the "Jones Act" which was back by Obama's Union pals to keep foreign ships out of the Gulf. But, all that will make no difference as Obama will initiate a speaking tour — like an election campaign extravaganza — claiming credit for stopping the millions of gallons of deadly oil erupting into the Gulf. He will now also claim that "He" put everyone back to work again. As his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel says: "Never waste a crisis." BP may be close to a solution, either with a cap or with the 2 interceptor wells they're drilling. Did you really think that Obama's boys didn't have a private pipe-line into BP for an advance heads-up as to when BP would reach a solution that spells success? Imagine! A solution to save the Gulf of Mexico just in time for the November mid-term elections! Of course, some of the media would wonder IF the well could have been capped earlier or IF the offer of bigger skimmers from abroad would have been accepted earlier? In any case look for Obama's cheerleaders to be prepared to support the Obama claim it was "all his efforts that saved the day, the Gulf, the fishermen, the beach resorts, the birds, the turtles...etc." Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@gwinstonglobal.org |
|
LEST WE FORGET
Posted by Paul Eidelberg, July 13, 2010. |
|
With the ... ascendancy of Binyamin Netanyahu as Israel's first nationally elected Prime Minister, it would be well to recall certain salient points of Ben Hecht's book Perfidy, one of the most powerful books of the twentieth century. The book documents not only the deeds of Rudolf Kastner, who collaborated with Eichmann's plan to exterminate 800,000 Hungarian Jews, but also the complicity of the most prominent founders of the State of Israel. I mention this lest we forget that Jewish politicians have betrayed the Jewish people while other Jewish politicians remained silent. "In my own time," writes Hecht, "governments have taken the place of people. They have also taken the place of God. Governments speak for people ... and determine, absurdly, their lives and deaths." This was not so of the Jewish people in days of old, when our Prophets admonished kings and kingdoms, or when our Sages taught us the laws of piety and of public morality. In those days, "in the soul of the Jews, in his tabernacle and kitchen, there was only one Kingdom — that of God. There was only one set of laws — the exercise of humanity." Hecht asks: "What happened to this fine heritage when Jews finally fashioned a government of their own in Israel; what happened to Jews when they became politicians, what happened to a piety, a sense of honor, and a brotherly love that 2,500 years of anti-Semitism were unable to disturb in the Jewish soul?" What happened is that egoism and impersonal authority arose and removed piety and honor and brotherly love from public life. "There is no devilish or disgraceful deed," writes Hecht, "that cannot be shined up into a patriotic necessity by the right propaganda [as witness the 'peace process']. All that is needed is for people to believe in their duly elected leaders." Gentiles have also been guilty of perfidious deeds. But in view of the centuries of torture to which the Jews have been subjected by the gentile world, it is doubly disturbing when Jews betray their own people, or remain silent in the face of perfidy. Again Hecht: "The Jews have of necessity been good traders and bright salesmen, although they never before sold what a government clique has been selling to the Germans [and more recently to Arab Jew-killers] — their loyalty to their dead, their moral judgment of their enemies. If their ancestral Jews had asked a price for these things, Jews would long ago have passed out of history. And Israel would not have come into existence." But now that Israel has joined the powers of the world, says Hecht, perhaps "Six million dead Jews are not as important a political factor as 60 million live Germans ..." And today? Surely four or five million Jews in Israel are not as important an economic factor as 250 million Arabs. Is this why Yasir Arafat could win a Nobel Peace Prize despite his having committed crimes which, according to the principles of the Nuremberg trials, are crimes against humanity — Arafat, the honored guest of politicians in Oslo and Washington, to say nothing of certain Jewish politicians in Israel? Hecht reminds us that "The ancient Greeks believed that unpunished crimes brought plagues to the people who harbored them. They sought out and punished the evil doers in order to purify human life." Today (contrary to international law) criminals like Arafat are rewarded. He and his Jew-killers have been armed by Israeli politicians with the "moral" support and financial assistance of the United States. All this in the name of "peace," the soporific of Israel's former [Labor] government — and it seems of its [Likud] successor. I hear the objection: "How dare you question the Authority or Good Intentions of a Jewish government committed to peace?" I ask in response: What does this soporific of peace blot out from the consciousness of so many Jews? Hecht would answer: Their sense of honor, their loyalty to their dead, their moral judgment of their enemies [with whom Netanyahu wants to make peace, utterly forgetful of their genocidal or theologically inspired objectives]. Professor Paul Eidelberg is an Internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. Contact him at list-owner@foundation1.org. This article was written in 1999. |
|
PERKS OF WRITING FOR THE NY TIMES: NICHOLAS KRISTOF'S GAZA SOLUTION
Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, July 13, 2010. |
|
In his "Burrowing through a Blockade," (The New York Times, July 11, 2010) Nicholas Kristof demonstrates the great perks of writing for the New York Times. Evidently when one works for the New York Times he can have published dubious material as long as it is anti-Israel in content. A prime example is the above mentioned article wherein Kristof found an inspiring place to write and formulate his Gaza solution. He was inside an 800 foot long smuggler tunnel burrowing into Gaza from Egypt. His solution: All Israel has to do is lift its 'siege' of Gaza. allow free access of all materials into Gaza, thus eliminating the need for any tunnels. As a result, the business men in Gaza would be rejuvenated by eliminating the competition of these tunnel smugglers. They would then, ipso facto, become pro-Israel in their gratitude, and become a successful counterweight against the power and dedication of Hamas to destroy the Jewish State. It is truly hard to think of anything more naive or else cleverly destructive to Israel in its presentation. I thought naive appropriate until I read of Kristof's illustrious professional history and previous commentary on the Arabs and the Middle East. Obviously, Kristof has an ax to grind which coincidently, corresponds with that of his illustrious publisher. Evidently Kristof does not know that Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel, that Hamas has refused to recognize or make peace with Israel. It has assaulted Israel with thousands of rockets since seizing control of the territory in 2007. It has smuggled into Gaza offensive weaponry that any sovereign nation has every right to prevent, including the right to intercept sea vessels suspected of carrying arms and refusing to dock for inspection. As to the admission of humanitarian supplies to Gaza — even Kristof had to admit that the tunnels provided plenty of access to as much humanitarian material as needed. The immediate world also chooses to ignore the fact that every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza — a pretty generous way to treat an enemy dedicated to its destruction. It is also unlikely that the following brief history is of any importance to Kristof's thesis: In the 1947 UN partition plan agreement, the sand dunes that became Gush Katif (area of Gaza) were part of Israel and only came under Egyptian rule after the 1948 War of Israel Independence. Egypt conquered Gaza, to which it had no legitimate previous claim, when the Arab Legion attacked Israel attempting to annihilate it after 2000 years of Jewish forced exile. The land in Gaza was part of Jewish biblical land. Remember the triumph of Samson over Goliath. Present day Israelis built 23 towns over 30 years in Gaza out of nothing but the sand of the desert. These towns were arbitrarily destroyed by Israel's own government in August 2005 because of Ariel Sharon personal legal problems and need to curry favor with the far Left within the government. Hard working, productive families consisting of over 7000 people were uprooted from their homes, synagogues, farms and their biblical history and centuries-old tradition. Immediately upon the Israeli government-forced withdrawal, Arab mobs from Gaza overwhelmed, looted and destroyed the homes, buildings, greenhouses and fisheries that had created thousands of jobs and produce that could have profited and provided employment for the Arab residents of Gaza for years to come. Despite this Arab propensity for self-destruction, the international community has been generous and made the following pledges to the Gazan Arabs: On 2 March 2009, in an international conference at the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, donors pledged $4.481 billion to help the Palestinian economy and rebuild the Gaza Strip. The biggest donor was Saudi Arabia with $1 billion, followed by the United States, which promised $900 million, a third for humanitarian aid to Gaza and the rest to assist the Palestinian Authority of President Mahmoud Abbas. The conference was criticized by Iran. But, what has actually happened to this aid and the billions of dollars given in the past is questionable, especially recalling the history of donations given to the previous great Arab peace maker, Yasser Arafat. But, never-mind all of the above, if only Israel would allow those tunnels to function unobstructed as per the recommendation of Middle East expert, Nicholas Kristof, all the problems of Gaza would be solved. For further insight into Nicholas Kristof, please click into the following YouTube interview wherein he explains the treatment of females in Islamic society. It might help you understand how he came to write his masterpiece on tunnel burrowing. Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist
Organization of America and editor of Israel Commentary
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: SWALLOWING HARD
Posted by Arlene Kushner, July 12, 2010. |
|
That swallowing is necessary before taking in information on all the things our prime minister is saying as he pursues peace — or the illusion thereof. Pursues it with a vengeance. I remain convinced that he is confident that Abbas will not come through — the evidence for this smacks us in the face! — and that there will be no meaningful negotiations, and that in the end there will be no Palestinian state. As I have indicated previously, I believe that he sees this charade as the smartest way to make Israel come out on top at the end of the day. He will be able to point to himself as the person ready to cooperate and to Abbas as the stumbling block. At one point, in an interview, he even said that he is prepared to take "surprising" risks for peace, but that he needs a partner — he cannot go out on the trapeze alone. His analogy is clear, as Abbas's hands are not outstretched to us. But yet, the things he says! That he believes we can have peace in a year. Really? Under ideal conditions I don't believe this would be the case. Of course, he qualifies this by saying implementation would take a lot longer. And then there were these unsettling words: "We have differences of views with the Palestinians. We want a united city [Jerusalem]. They have their own views. This is one of the issues that will have to be negotiated. But I think the main point is to get on with it, what are we wasting more time for?" ~~~~~~~~~~ I myself remain unconvinced that this is the best way to go. If I correctly understand what he suggests regarding the time lag between laying out parameters and actually implementing everything, he's going down a very dangerous road. You don't agree to anything (especially not on paper) unless you are certain that implementation is possible. We must protect ourselves, making certain that when the whole thing does fall apart, we're not committed to parameters that might come back to haunt us later. Netanyahu is able to reject PA demands that we begin negotiations where Olmert left off because Olmert had put nothing in writing. It must remain thus. ~~~~~~~~~~ I deeply regret our failure, even now, to hold PA feet to the fire. Netanyahu will advance to the table for face-to-face talks (if Abbas will show up) even though there has been no movement at all towards re-publishing PA textbooks without the message that jihad is good. The time necessary for peace to be implemented is actually decades. There can be no genuine peace until we have a generation of Palestinian Arabs that wasn't raised on hatred for us. This is the party that Netanyahu is prepared to negotiate with: Last week, Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, a Hezbollah "spiritual leader," died. Fadlallah was on the US list of terrorists. He had issued a fatwa (religious ruling) sanctioning suicide attacks on US troops and on Israel. According to Reuters, a doctor treating Fadlallah before his death reported that, while he was still conscious a nurse him asked if there was anything she could bring him. His reply: "I ask for nothing except that the Zionist entity should pass from the world." Palestinian Media Watch reports —
~~~~~~~~~~ Meanwhile, as I indicated above, Abbas is still balking. Two days ago, he said: "We have presented our vision and thoughts and said that if progress is made, we will move to direct talks, but that if no progress is made, it [direct talks] will be futile. "If they say, 'Come and let's start negotiations from zero,'that is futile and pointless." Even statements from Obama regarding the need to move to direct talks are not having an effect, at least not yet. ~~~~~~~~~~ But what are we doing? In a "been-there, done-that" action, following Netanyahu's meeting with Obama, we are talking about some "good will gestures." When you read about this, you may need to do more than swallow hard. You might be inclined to bang your head against the wall. Why are we doing this? Because Obama wants us to, clearly. But this is after statements had come from our side (pre-Obama meeting, admittedly) declaring that we have made enough concessions and it was the PA's turn. How foolish this makes us. There is the usual litany of possibilities — varying slightly with the source — regarding taking down of checkpoints, increasing security cooperation, release of some prisoners, etc. Ostensibly what will these get us? Why, they'll provide incentives for Abbas to come to the table. Forgive me, but this is very very stupid. If Abbas genuinely wanted a Palestinian state he'd be rushing to the table to firm up details. (And we must thank Heaven that he's not doing this!) As it is, Abbas has some very big problems. If he comes to the table he is going to be expected to make some accommodations towards a settlement, and he has neither the inclination nor the latitude to make them. The political climate in the Palestinian Arab areas of Judea and Samaria won't allow it, and he has Hamas breathing down his neck as well. Any concessions and he'll be labeled a traitor. Why does he publicly salute a terrorist such as Fadlallah? Because the street expects this. It's terribly foolish to imagine that the concessions we would make will convince the street to embrace negotiations. Because we release some prisoners, or take down some checkpoints is no guarantee that the "refugees" will be able to "return," or that the PA will get all of eastern Jerusalem. And these are non-negotiable items for them. ~~~~~~~~~~ We're are also seeing here in Israel a great deal of press regarding the changes in Obama. As I believe the changes are tactical and do not represent a change of heart, I do not intend to belabor this matter unduly. You might find this piece by Yisrael Harel, "Obama sobers up," interesting:
~~~~~~~~~~ A great deal more to follow soon... Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
GOVERNMENT-FUNDED ART EXHIBIT ON ISLAM INVITES VISTORS TO WEAR BURQAS
Posted by Boris Celser, July 14, 2010. |
|
The dhimmi for a day exhibit This is a news item from Birmingham Mail.net and comes from
|
|
BIRMINGHAM Museum was forced to close two thirds of its galleries and cancel the opening of a major publicly-funded exhibition yesterday — due to security staff shortages. The embarrassing debacle comes just five days before the city hopes to be crowned the UK's Capital of Culture. The council decided to close 12 galleries on Friday night when it realised it was short of security staff to protect exhibits from theft. Just the main corridors and Edwardian team rooms opened at the Chamberlain Square venue yesterday. The controversial Heard and Not Seen show, which has received €25,000 of public cash, had been due to open to the public for the first time. The exhibition aimed to improve understanding of Islam by including a workshop where visitors were invited to wear burkhas. The City of Culture bid is being led by Councillor Martin Mullaney, Cabinet member for Leisure Sport and Culture. He brushed off the embarrassment of the closure yesterday and said: "We've had a number of security staff off ill — this caught us unaware. "Because we have to maintain a minimum level of security, we felt it would be best to close the galleries. "It's very unfortunate but it is a one-off situation, and it's a shame that it has happened just before the City of Culture announcement. It's one of those things which does occasionally happen at any institution. "It caught us on the hop — it was too late for us to get in agency staff to cover. The worst thing would have been to open all the galleries and have stuff stolen." Rita McLean, Head of Museums and Heritage Services, said: "The decision to close part of the museum and art gallery was made due to an extreme set of circumstances. "Our security numbers meet nationally recognised standards and it would be irresponsible to open galleries with lower than adequate staffing levels. "Our museum service is the largest of its kind in the country, providing many free exhibitions and events each year, and remains an integral part of the city's cultural offer.'' The Heard and Not Seen exhibition is on display until August 22 and had sparked controversy when details were first revealed in the Sunday Mercury. John Midlgley, co-founder of the Campaign Against Political Correctness, said: "The exhibition is a patronising waste of public money. "This is gong to do little to tackle extremism and bring about social cohesion within communities across Birmingham. It has been done in the name of political correctness but it seems to be potentially counter-productive." But Lee Griffiths, Director of Friction Arts, which is running the Heard and Not Seen show, said the event was still very much going ahead. "It's all set up, but due to staff shortages the museum had to close 12 galleries, including the one where the show is to be held,'' he said. "We should open on Monday evening, or maybe even on Sunday, we are waiting to hear off the museum." Birmingham is currently battling against Derry, Norwich and Sheffield to be named the UK's Capital of Culture, which could be worth €800 million to the city and bring in an extra four million visitors. High profile supporters include pop star Beverley Knight, actress Julie Walters and Lord Digby Jones of Birmingham. The final announcement will be made on Thursday. Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net |
|
HAMAS TV BEAMS ANTI-SEMITIC LIES ABOUT BEN FRANKLIN
Posted by Hana Levi Julian, July 12, 2010. |
|
Al Aqsa (Hamas-Gaza) TV is continuing its unabated televised anti-Semitic incitement with an interview that claims United States founding father Benjamin Franklin warned Americans about the Jews. The claim, made in an Arabic-language interview on June 17 by United Arab Emirates Creativity Center director Dr. Ali Al-Hamadi, was translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). "If you read about the literature and heritage of America, you will see that they consider former U.S. President (sic) Benjamin Franklin to be one of their greatest minds," Al-Hamadi began. "When you read about U.S. heritage, you encounter words written in ink of gold. The Americans endorse the words of Franklin, but when he talks about the Jews, they ignore his words completely." "He (Franklin) lived in 1779, and delivered a famous speech. Addressing the American people, he talked about an immense danger that faced them. He said: 'Do not think that by achieving our independence, the United States is safe from all danger. There is an immense danger...' "These were his words. 'An immense danger faces the American people — the proliferation of Jews in the United States.' He went on to say: 'The Jews are devils and bats. We must expel these sinners...' These are his words, not mine. We must expel this group of sinners from the United States, and if you don't do this immediately, our future generations will curse you, when they find themselves under the boots of the Jews.' It turns out, however, that Al-Hamadi's claim is based on a classic anti-Semitic canard called The Franklin "Prophecy," a falsified document debunked many decades ago. A 2004 report issued by the U.S. Congress, "Anti-Semitism in Europe: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on European Affairs of the Committee on Relations" describes the fake on page 69: The Franklin "Prophecy" is a classic anti-Semitic canard that falsely claims that American statesman Benjamin Franklin made anti-Jewish statements during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. It has found widening acceptance in Muslim and Arab media, where it has been used to criticize Israel and Jews..." But it was actually proven false as far back as 1954, when the New York-based Anti-Defamation League issued a detailed refutation of the hoax, which apparently first appeared in 1934. As for Benjamin Franklin, his liberal attitudes towards people of all religions were well known; in fact, his donation of five pounds of his own money to the building of a synagogue in his city during the fund-raising campaign of the Hebrew Society of Philadelphia is clearly documented. Numerous historians and biographers of the founding father have denounced the so-called "speech." Among them is J. Henry Smyth, Jr., compiler of The Amazing Benjamin Franklin, who labeled the canard a "libel of the Jewish race, unjust both to Jews and to the name and fame of Benjamin Franklin. I have investigated this calumny and find no historical basis." Hana Levi Julian is a columnist for Arutz-Sheva,(www.IsraelNationalNews.com) where this article appeared. |
|
HIZBULLAH HAS REGAINED CONTROL OVER SOUTHERN LEBANON
Posted by Daily Alert, July 12, 2010. |
|
This was written by Avi Issacharoff and it appeared in Haaretz |
|
Four years after the Second Lebanon War, Hezbollah can credit itself with yet another achievement in its campaign against Israel: southern Lebanon is once again in its hands. According to various assessments, the Shi'ite organization has rebuilt its military capabilities north of the Litani River, where it has established a network of missile launchers any army in the world would be proud to possess. Furthermore, it has repaired the infrastructure of the Shi'ite villages south of the Litani that were severely hit in the war. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, which was deployed to southern Lebanon in 2006 in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1701 — passed at the end of the war — was supposed to prevent such activity. In recent months, however, UNIFIL has been harassed by Shi'ite villagers in the southern part of the country who are apparently acting on Hezbollah's orders. The international peacekeeping force, particularly its French battalion, has been repeatedly humiliated by the local population. Villagers have hurled stones and eggs at them, and have even seized soldiers' weapons. UNIFIL's commander, Maj. Gen. Alberto Asarta Cuevas, this week asked the Lebanese government to protect his troops. The confrontation Hezbollah initiated with the French contingent has renewed the internal debate in Lebanon — between the Shi'ite organization and the Al-Mustaqbal camp headed by Lebanese Prime Minister Said Hariri (and thought to be under French patronage ). While Hezbollah hinted that UNIFIL's French battalion is serving "foreign" (namely, Israeli ) interests, Hariri flew to Paris to conciliate President Nicolas Sarkozy and clarify that Lebanon is interested in keeping French troops on its soil. 'Not a knockout blow' Thus, one of Israel's chief accomplishments in the Second Lebanon War — distancing Hezbollah from its northern frontier — is slowly vanishing. The Shi'ite organization, which was dealt a severe blow in the summer of 2006, has recovered at an impressive rate in the military, civilian and political spheres. "It was not a knockout blow, but it was sufficiently painful to force Hezbollah to grow up," says Prof. Eyal Zisser, an expert on Syria and Lebanon, the director of Tel Aviv University's Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, and the university's dean of humanities. "Since the war, the organization has been presenting a more controlled, a more restrained, stance," he says. "It's the kind of experience that makes you or breaks you. On the other hand, its scars from the war will lead it to think many times over before it tries to face off with Israel again." In the last Lebanese parliamentary elections, in 2009, Hezbollah's political standing changed very little. Initially its leaders admitted defeat, but the organization actually lost only one seat when compared to the previous elections, while its Christian partner in the anti-West camp, former army chief Michel Aoun, increased his political strength and clarified that Lebanon's Maronites support Hezbollah. Nevertheless, the group is limited by Lebanon's electoral system as the Shi'ites in that country are allocated a maximum of 27 parliamentary seats. Perhaps this explains why Hezbollah is steadily tightening its military foothold in Lebanon. The Lebanese army, which receives American assistance, avoids clashing with Hezbollah, which is also interested in maintaining "industrial peace" with the army. For the moment, at least — despite the unprecedented rate at which it is arming itself — Hezbollah apparently is not looking for another round of fighting with Israel, preferring instead to focus on a gradual takeover of Lebanon. Still, it should be recalled that in early July 2006, a few days before the war broke out, the assessment in Lebanon was that Hezbollah was not interested in a confrontation with Israel. The death of Grand Ayatollah Fadlallah Last Sunday, Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah died in Beirut at the age of 75. One of the most important Shi'ite religious figures in the Muslim world, Fadlallah was regarded as one of Hezbollah's founders and as its spiritual leader in the 1980s. He was also one of the most fascinating Shi'ite religious leaders in the modern world. Although his religious rulings were a model for emulation for hundreds of thousands of followers, they also led to clashes with the Shi'ite religious institutions in Iran. Born in 1935 in Najaf, Iraq, his father was a native of Lebanon. Fadlallah wrote poetry until the age of 12, when he began attending one of the city's Shi'ite madrassas (religious schools ). In 1966 he moved to Lebanon, where he engaged in religious studies as well as social welfare work among the Shi'ite community. Displaying a marked interest in the status of women in Muslim society, Fadlallah argued that lack of equality between husband and wife ran counter to the Koran. In addition, he held relatively progressive views on abortions, maintaining that the procedure could be performed at any stage in the pregnancy if the fetus was endangering the mother's health. On the topic of men doing household chores, Fadlallah wrote that the "social culture of ignorance, not Islam, is the source of the argument that a man humiliates himself if he does household chores." He even explained that Ali, regarded by Shi'ite Muslims as the first imam, used to help his wife Fatima (the prophet Mohammed's daughter ) with housework and that, when the prophet asked her to bake bread, Ali himself would clean the house and gather firewood. Fadlallah also encouraged women to study Islamic religious law, to provide commentary on religious texts and to discuss such matters even with men. While Fadlallah expressed total support for the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, he challenged the authority of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his entourage, and repeatedly warned the members of the Islamic movement to beware of charismatic leaders (specifically mentioning Khomeini in that context) whose personalities overshadow the message they are supposed to be conveying to their public. In 1982, he began setting up a network of social service agencies in Lebanon, as an emissary of his spiritual mentor and role model, Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Abul-Qassim al-Khoei, whom he regarded as the Marja al-Taqlid (a religious authority to be followed and emulated) — despite the fact that Hezbollah and Iran considered Khomeini to be the Marja al-Taqlid. Face-off with Iran and Hezbollah Following Khomeini's death in 1989, the question of who would inherit the mantle of the Marja al-Taqlid in the Shi'ite world took on ever-increasing urgency. Fadlallah regarded Grand Ayatollah al-Khoei as his Marja al-Taqlid, as did many other people in the Shi'ite world. With al-Khoei's death in 1993, Grand Ayatollah Golpayegani of Iran became Fadlallah's Marja al-Taqlid. It was after Golpayegani died that the crisis between Fadlallah, Hezbollah and Iran really began to play out more openly. Tehran proclaimed Ayatollah Sheikh Mohsen Araki, who was over 100 years old at the time, as the Shi'ite Marja al-Taqlid — a move intended to pave the way for the ascension of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (following Araki's death ). Fadlallah, however, announced his own support for Ayatollah Sistani, who at the time resided in Najaf. At that point, Hezbollah declared its backing for Tehran's position and announced that its members must support Araki and must not regard anyone else as the Marja al-Taqlid. Araki died in December 1994; three months later, Iran declared Khamenei's appointment to that senior post. Fadlallah argued that Iran was simply trying to bolster its own political-religious position among the Muslim Shi'ites; he continued to support Sistani, and as a result was severely criticized by other Shi'ite religious leaders. His mosque was banned and, on one occasion, shots were fired at his car. Although he later reconciled with Hezbollah leaders, Fadlallah still kept his distance from them. Refusing to recognize Iran's leadership in the Shi'ite world, he maintained his religious autonomy and chose his own unique political path. The Daily Alert is sponsored by Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and prepared by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). To subscribe to their free daily alerts, send an email to daily@www.dailyalert.jcpa.org |
|
PA ARAB CIVIL RIGHTS IN LEBANON VS ISRAEL; VIGIL TO FREE POLLARD;
AMERICAN SELF-CENSORSHIP ON ISLAM
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 12, 2010. |
|
PALESTINIAN ARAB CIVIL RIGHTS IN LEBANON AND ISRAEL 
An estimated 425,000 Palestinian Arabs live in Lebanon, denied citizenship and civil rights. Parliament is considering some reform. The first bill coming up would authorize Palestinian Arabs to work in fields of endeavor presently denied them, such as the ordinary professions. It also would authorize them to purchase health insurance. Political rights are not being considered, and the PLO has not asked that they be. Prime Minister Hariri proposes passing the legislation in exchange for Palestinian Arab security cooperation. Many of his supporters oppose the bill. Hizbullah favors it (IMRA, 7/10/10). On the one hand, Lebanon has some justification for discrimination against Palestinian Arabs. The PLO had tried to take over the country, set off a terrible civil war ended by exploitative Syrian intervention, and retains armed militias. On the other hand, the government of Lebanon, like that of some other Arab states, prefers keeping Palestinian Arab families as non-citizens, eventually to be sent into Israel to destroy it. Although Arab unemployment is high, the PLO discourages Arabs from working in the joint Israeli-built industrial zones and from working for Jewish towns in the Territories. People in Jewish towns in the Territories willingly hire Arabs. Israel imposes no blanket prohibition of Arab citizens working, buying health insurance, or exercising political rights, but the situation is complicated. The officials of Arab political parties in Israel commit treason, but only one was indicted. That unequal application of the law is reverse discrimination that injures national security. The government also refuses in general to enforce the law against Arabs' tax evasion, land theft, illegal building, illegal immigration, rustling, riots — depending on circumstances — and assaults on Jews in the Territories. Non-citizen Arabs in Jerusalem enjoy Israeli government welfare benefits. Preferences are given to Arabs for certain government jobs and college entry — that is ethnic discrimination. Aside from "affirmative action," Israel bars job discrimination, though a small amount probably still exists. In Israel, a country that always has to fight off would-be conquerors, employers give preference to veterans. Not all Jews serve. Arabs are not drafted, but may volunteer for the military or for alternative national service. Except for Druse and some Bedouin, few Arabs do. Having attempted before to drive the Jews out, and sympathizing with Arab regimes still aspiring to despoil the Jews, Israeli Arabs still face restrictions on access to sensitive military industry. Jobs requiring security clearances usually are based on veteran status (much of this information is from a private Israeli source, 7/11/10). Incidentally, although the Palestine Mandate guaranteed religious and civil rights for the Arabs, it reserved political rights for the Jews. That is one of its many indications of pre-statehood planning for Jewish sovereignty. All in all, Israeli Arabs are the freest in the Mideast. Anti-Zionists, who protest against Israel in the name of non-existent Israeli oppression of the Arabs, hypocritically abstain from protest against oppression of Arabs in the whole Mideast, including in the Palestinian Authority. The anti-Zionists' double standard exposes their unconcern for the Arabs, unconcern for justice, and unconcern for American values. That leaves animus for Jewish sovereignty.
ARABS AND JEWS COOPERATE TO SAVE HEBRON OLIVE TREES Hebron spokesman and activist, Noam Arnon, spotted a parasitic plant, divkon hazayit, killing ancient Olive trees at Tel Hebron. Some trees were 2,000 years old. Mr. Arnon alerted the government, which devised a plan of treatment. Arabs and Jews from the area volunteered to pick the parasites off and to prune infected areas. People spent weeks on the effort. Even when the trunk is removed, olive trees can regenerate from the roots. The media devotes itself to communal conflict, but ignores communal cooperation. For another example of cooperation, in 2008, a sheikh prevented left-wing anarchists from destroying the Hazon David synagogue. Then the two communities worked together to create friendly Muslim-Jewish ties. In 2005, Arabs and Jews together to expel extreme-left foreign activists from the city (Arutz-7, 7/12/10). A chief principle of modern Zionism is cooperation. Unfortunately, Arafat's kinsman, the Grand Mufti, organized terrorism against it. His first victims were Arabs. He wanted to force them to follow him and hate, hate, hate. That continued assumption of Muslim superiority and exclusive entitlement to the country perpetuates the unnecessary state of war. I have never seen anti-Zionists express the slightest sympathy for the many thousands of victims of Arab terrorism. Arab terrorism, as well as the approach of war, caused the 20,000-strong Arab upper class to set the example of flight in 1947, before the war began.
DISCOVER JERUSALEM'S OLDEST LETTER Excavation between the southern wall of the Old City of Jerusalem and the City of David has uncovered the oldest letter known in Jerusalem. The previous oldest letter, found in the same vicinity, was from the 8th century BCE, well within Hebrew times. [Moses is estimated to have lived about 1,200 BCE.] This letter is from 14th century BCE. It is written in Akkadian, the lingua franca of its time and region. The wording is of high quality, indicating it was done by a professional scribe. He probably was communicating between the King of Jerusalem and the Pharaoh of Egypt. This find indicates that Jerusalem was an important city further back than had been known (Arutz-7, 7/12/10). Jews are the oldest remaining ethnic group to have inhabited Jerusalem.
ISRAEL FINISHES MILITARY INVESTIGATION OF FLOTILLA ACTION The IDF has completed its investigation of the flotilla incident. It submitted a report to the government. This investigation focused on the military preparation and action. Within that scope, its charter was a broad one but does not include evaluation of individual military personnel. General Eiland criticized IDF intelligence-gathering and planning for the mission. The IDF thought it was dealing with peace activists, and did not realize it would face martyrdom-seeking Islamists. The Kurland commission continues its investigation of the
non-military aspects of the flotilla (Arutz-7, 7/12/10).
MORE ON IDF INVESTIGATION OF FLOTILLA The report concluded that the IDF should have prepared alternatives for decision makers to choose, in case of more dangerous reactions on board ship. However, at present, no navy has a technique for non-hostile of arresting a ship. Statements made later in public about alternatives are not responsible. Press releases and visual materials were "delayed due to the need to maintain reliability, the obligation to notify the families of the critically injured soldiers and the long authorization process at the levels above the IDF Spokesperson Unit." [Perhaps that process takes too long, perhaps for requiring serial approval instead of joint approval?] The commanders were active and the soldiers acted professionally. The use of live fire was justified. The medical evacuation went well. The process of self-examination and revealing the results enable the IDF to improve but makes it seem worse, in comparison with other armies, which are more secretive (IMRA, 7/12/10).
HAARETZ ON HAMAS' ISRAELI CAPTIVE AND PALESTINIAN ARABS 
Mr. Masalha calls the soldier a "captive" and not "abducted." He makes this distinction because his captors seized the soldier in a military-style operation against "occupation" and for "national liberation." Denying Shalit and his family the right for visits is a stain on Palestinian Arab honor. Masalha advises Hamas to "gain a moral victory over the occupier" by letting Shalit's family visit him. Masalha assumes that Shalit is being held under humane conditions (7/12/10 )
PALESTINIAN ARABS PROTEST FOR FREEDOM OF PRESS Israel was just about to let newspapers from the Judea-Samaria part of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) through and into Gaza, when the Hamas regime refused to let it in. Hamas explained that the P.A. will not let Gaza newspapers into the Judea-Samaria part of the P.A.. So neither will let the others' newspapers in. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights protests in behalf of freedom of the press. It cites some P.A. basic law and unnamed "relevant international instruments" guaranteeing such freedom. The Center notes that those newspapers are published online. People in either part of the P.A. can read the other part's newspapers. The censorship is futile (IMRA, 7/12/10). In that small area, the people in each part of the P.A. probably also can tune in to the other part's broadcasts. In Israel, Jordanian TV came in clearly, other Arab TV less so, when I visited. Arab newspapers are published in Israel. How far they go in promoting sedition is an issue. Israel is freer for Arabs than are Arab countries. Thousands of Palestinian Arabs moved into Jerusalem, when they feared that their part of Judea-Samaria might be taken over by the P.A.. They voted with their feet. Syria murdered independent journalists. Arafat tended more to beat or kidnap them, to get them in line, but he closed many newspapers. Iran represses most independent media. Turkey and Venezuela have been following suit.
JERUSALEM VIGIL TO FREE POLLARD The first two of a three-day vigil in Jerusalem to free Jonathan Pollard brought thousands of people, according to Justice4Pollard. They had record heat there, as we have been having in New York City, where street trees can be seen dying. Pollard's wife addressed the crowd in Hebrew and in English. Tomorrow, buses are expected to bring Israelis in from further away (IMRA, 7/12/10). When I state the facts and draw logical deductions why Pollard should be released, readers ignore the facts and logic. That doesn't interest them. They are interested only in denunciation and denunciation on the level of "you bad." These critics affirm their patriotism and deny that of those who disagree with them. Let's test how patriotic their denunciations are. Disagree with them, and they tell you to leave the country. That is un-American. Who wants to leave our land of liberty to such nasty people who do not know how to conduct a rational discussion? In Pollard's case, justice was perverted. The government broke his parole agreement, leaked defamatory statements, sentenced him to an excessive term for his crime, and treated him brutally. Not one word of disapproval of those un-American activities by our government. Defamatory statements included claims that he sold information, that he transferred intelligence to USSR, and that U.S. agents were liquidated as a result. He was charged only with transferring documents about Arab armies, information that the U.S. government had promised Israel. Behind the scenes, officials sabotaged that U.S. policy. This subversion is of no interest to the supposed patriots. They do not care about subversion of the U.S.. Originally, our spy-masters suspected Pollard of harming the U.S.. Somebody was doing that. Pollard already was in the dock. So they suspected him. No evidence. Poor police work. Meanwhile, our agents were being rolled up. Eventually, the Soviets' informants were discovered — Pollard was not among them. Pollard's chief accuser, former Defense Sec. Weinberger, belatedly admitted that the accusations were highly exaggerated. Not one word of indignation from our self-appointed patriots that our intelligence agencies were mishandling matters and our courts committed an injustice, punishing someone for what he did not do.. Pollard's treatment was excessive, because for his minor category of spying, the usual sentence is up to four years, but he got life without parole. By contrast, spies for China, a rival and no ally, and for Saudi Arabia, a font of terrorism against the U.S., received lighter sentences than four years or simply were released. When I state those facts, not one word of indignation comes from the purported patriots. They want him to stay in prison longer than the 20+ years he already served, and do not care how little prison time is served by those who turn U.S. secrets over to enemy states. Pollard stumbled upon the Iran-Contra deal and upon U.S. assistance to Saddam in building factories to make poison gas. Later he gassed thousands of Iraqi Kurds, fellow Sunni Muslims whom the ostensible humanitarians among my critics do not seem to mind having been exterminated. Those U.S. officials were facilitating dictators' crimes against humanity and foolishly undermining U.S. security in the long run. The perpetrators never were punished. The subversion never was investigated. The make-believe patriots do not care. What this boils down to is that these critics' ill-serve America. Their double standard is to demand excessive punishment for the spy for the Jewish state, and to ignore the other spies. Add bigotry to the list of their un-American stances. One can predict their reaction to this piece: ignore the facts, make up a story, and denounce personally.
EUROPEAN MOSQUE ATTENDANCE FALLING New statistics on Muslim mosque attendance seem to show a process of assimilation. Within five years of immigration, Muslim attendance at mosques declines from about two-thirds to half or less. The question is whether this is a process of secularization or a process of privatization. They may be pious in private. Alternatively, they do not feel they need mosques in as pervasive an aspect of their lives as formerly. The falling attendance at mosques may be following the falling attendance at churches (Daniel Pipes, 7/11/10).
AMERICAN SELF-CENSORSHIP ON ISLAM Penn Jillette Magazine prides itself on irreverent humor. However, Jillette admits that Showtime has forbidden him to mock Scientology and he hasn't tackled Islam "because we have families." Fear of self-expression does not belong in a free society. However, Muslims do carry out some threats of violence against those who "insult" the faith. For example, the recent assault on Muhammad cartoonist Lars Vilks and the attempt to torch his home — nurtures self-censorship about Islam. Yet Jillette does deserve a little credit here. He not only cops to his own dhimmification, but also voices a truth rarely made so explicit: that those who walk on eggshells around Muslims have few, if any, worries when insulting Christians. Some other evidence of this striking contrast:
Muslims have threatened and attacked people who did not mock, told historical truths, but either the truths were unfavorable or them mentioned or illustrated what Muslims do not want mentioned or illustrated. Mockery of a religion is in poor taste and is inconsiderate. Harmless humor, with a religion the subject, is reasonable. Muslim violence in our society is not. They have no right to chill our freedom.
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
THE POLLARD-SCHALIT CONNECTION
Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollard, July 12, 2010. |
|
Israel has not taken effective action to bring Gilad or Jonathan home alive. This was written by Esther Pollard and appeared in the
Jerusalem Post
Esther Pollard is the wife of Jonathan Pollard, an American-born Israeli citizen who worked for the Ministry of Defense. He is currently in his 25th year in an American prison for his activities on behalf of the security of the State of Israel. |
|
The government of Israel has flailed about for four years "trying" to secure Gilad Schalit's release, but failing miserably. The more time goes on, the more doubts there are about Schalit's continued viability. It is a fact that ever since my husband, Jonathan Pollard, was arrested in 1985 and abandoned by the State of Israel, the Israeli government has not succeeded in bringing a single captive IDF soldier home alive. It may well be that Gilad Schalit's swift return home, alive, depends on his connection to Jonathan Pollard. How so? Let's answer that question by way of analogy.
WHAT IS the best that can be said about a mother with two sons with special needs, who allows her friends to lock her elder son away in a cellar and throw the key away, while she devotes all her time, energy and attention to her younger son? To be kind, such a mother would, at best, be described as either morally deficient or mentally disturbed. Regardless of how her psychological state is defined, it is twisted and precludes her ability to act wisely, fairly or effectively for either of her sons. The two sons are part of the same psychological whole, but a mentally unbalanced mother is unable to relate to either of them in a healthy, normal, lifesustaining way. Worse still, her psychological state prevents her from seeing and accurately accessing all of the available options for her sons, and thus impedes her from making good decisions for either of them. Thus, it is specifically her abandonment and betrayal of her older son that defines the mother's moral/psychological state and prevents her from taking the most effective and appropriate action to save her younger son. Jonathan Pollard and Gilad Schalit are sons of the same mother, the State of Israel. Pollard and Schalit have more in common than the fact that they both served the State of Israel. Schalit served as a soldier, guarding its borders. Pollard served as an agent, providing it with the information that caused its civil defense plans to be changed from bomb shelters to sealed rooms and gas mask kits — not a small contribution to the state's ongoing security. Both Pollard and Schalit remain in captivity because of a warped morality that prevents government leaders from making good decisions for either of its national sons. The national psychosis which declared Pollard expendable 25 years ago and leaves him to rot in captivity is still ongoing, and has resulted in a moral paralysis which prevents the State of Israel from taking effective action to bring any captive home alive, Gilad included.
EFFECTIVE ACTION does not mean the release of hundreds or thousands of murderers and terrorists. Quite the opposite. Effective action, by definition, is action that would produce the desired result — freedom for a captive — without endangering the rest of Israel's soldiers or civilian population. Surrendering to terror and rewarding those who killed, maimed and murdered by setting them free is not justified and is morally corrupt. This plan seeks to free one captive by endangering the lives of all Israeli citizens and all Israeli soldiers. There are many ways to free a captive and bring him home alive, but a lack of moral integrity prevents the government from seeing or implementing these other solutions. The government and its cohorts in the defense-intelligence establishment appear to be far more concerned about what will be said on CNN than they are about freeing captives and bringing them home. Similarly, the public, via the media, has been seduced into believing that Israel has one captive and one captive only: Gilad Schalit. Any attempt to bring Pollard into the discussion is met with vehement protest and slanderous lies being bandied about by government officials attempting to shake Pollard off, the way you would shake something odious off of the bottom of your shoe. Again, this is the root of the problem that keeps both Pollard and Schalit in captivity. It is a manifestation of one Israel's highest values, not leaving a wounded solder in the field, being warped and perverted to apply it selectively. By definition, there is no such thing as mutual responsibility — all for one and one for all — when it is applied selectively. If the public is capable of ignoring Pollard, an Israeli agent in captivity for 25 years, but devoted heart and soul to returning Schalit home, its concern for Schalit is as corrupt as its lack of concern for Pollard. It reflects the same moral schizophrenia that the government has implemented as policy — a policy that damns Schalit, every bit as much as it damns Pollard. Returning a captive home requires no moral ambiguity. It requires moral integrity and moral consistency. It requires national pride and self-respect. The noisy, boisterous and bullying campaign for Gilad Schalit would do well to open its eyes to the truth. Jonathan Pollard's rescue and timely return home is the key to bringing all of our captives home alive. Editor's Note: This is by Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA: It is noteworthy from both the English and original Hebrew versions of the 11 July Cabinet Communique that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu opted, at the meeting he held with President Obama — a meeting that could very well mark the apogee of President Obama's good will towards PM Netanyahu, to ask President Obama to help Israel gain the release of Gilad Schalit from Hamas (a group President Obama has limited influence with) but declined to ask President Obama to release Jonathan Pollard — an action that President Obama could achieve with literally the stroke of a pen. So here is the puzzle: -- When relations were poor the release of Pollard wasn't raised so as not to exacerbate the situation. So when exactly does Prime Minister Netanyahu ask President Obama to release Jonathan Pollard? Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to justice4jp@gmail.com |
|
A BREATH OF FRESH AIR
Posted by Paul Lademain, July 12, 2010. |
|
Re: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/fitzgerald-how-the- failure-to-understand-jihad-is-costing-americans-trillions.html Hugh Fitzgerald's extravagant but worthwhile rebuttal of the Bushwah administration's tragic follies is a must-read for every American, especially the New York members of the New Israel Fund (many of whom, we suspect, can be counted amongst the number of Americans Hugh describes as 'purchased by and for the Saudis') and a must-read, especially, by the NYT's plump flat-liner, Tom Friedman. Tom, with his unspeakable love-fest for Saudi Arabia; a syrup of gratitude that poured mightily from his plump bosom onto the pages of the New York Times after the Saudi "royals" allowed him to enter Saudi Arabia and actually permitted him — a Jew! — to sit down at their table and eat lunch in their presence. Largesse that brought Tom to the brink of tears. Tom is not one who would ever be inclined to allow even so much as a thought to flit through his mighty brain that a jihadi, schooled from birth to hate infidels, might be incapable of embracing Christians and Jews. How could they not if we infidels would only remain constant in our willingness to give the jihadis their due, which is the most of our very best? Or so believes Tom, with his pink lenses and sugar-plum mind. Hugh understands what our past and current leadership has so far refused to understand. He makes no bones about telling us how our current administration's chief of all chiefs has ordered us to bankrupt ourselves by enlarging Bushwah's misbegotten policies now coupled to extravagant new programs that sound good on paper but are designed to fail; who corrupts our space program with his peremptory command that the new function of America's space program is to "reach out to the Muslim world" and who, like a mad Antoinette or a finger- waving imam, tells the out-of work American that he will none-the- less command our nation to distribute our bread to the mouths of those who have made it clear they are commanded by allah to remain firm in their belief that their destiny on earth is to destroy the infidel and all nations who house them. Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net |
|
A CHALLENGE TO PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU
Posted by Yaacov Levi, July 11, 2010. |
|
This was written by Professor Paul Eidelberg, an Internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. Contact him at list-owner@foundation1.org |
|
It is absolutely self-demeaning as well as an insult to the 5,726,000 Jews for Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to demand that terrorist chief Mahmoud Abbas recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Was there no one in the Knesset with enough Jewish pride to submit a vote of no-confidence in Netanyahu's ignominious government? Can any person who has not been deceived and degraded by seventeen years — nay, thirty-three years — of the official mendacity conveyed in the "peace process" fail to see the demoralization and emasculation of Israel? Ponder this statement of Winston Churchill: "The worst thing a leader can do is arouse false hopes, soon to be dashed." Has this not been the soporific of one Israeli prime minister after another since Menachem Begin, but brought to its apogee by Mr. Netanyahu? Aren't you tired and disgusted with his drivel about an economic solution to Israel's conflict with the Muslim Palestinians? What an insult to Islam! Isn't there a single person in the Knesset with enough courage and enough understanding of Islam to say that Islamic theology makes peace impossible? I say impossible because Islam posits a deity of pure will or absolute power in contradistinction to the Jewish and Christian theology that God is reason. Islamic theology that inevitably leads to the primacy of force, hence to the murder of "infidels." I say Impossible because Islamic theology necessarily regards the Genesis conception of man's creation in the image of God as sheer blasphemy — because reason limit Allah's absolute power. Isn't it obvious, Mr. Netanyahu, that, given Islam's irrational theology, which induces Muslims to love death more than life — isn't it obvious, Mr. Netanyahu, that negotiations with Mahmoud Abbas is futile as well as fatal? I challenge you to address this theological dilemma. I challenge you to recognize that, given the irrationality of Islamic theology, genuine and abiding peace between Jews and Muslims is impossible. This article is indebted to Robert R. Reilly's The Closing of the Muslim Mind, but I alone am responsible for its content. Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
YOU SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF THIS: ISLAMIC FINANCIAL TIES
Posted by Paul Lademain, July 11, 2010. |
|
From the July 8, 2010 Royal Gazette — Bermuda News |
|
Bermuda's Finance Minister, the Hon Paula Cox in Bahrain this week indicated that the double tax agreement between Bermuda and Bahrain has provided for both financial centres to create synergies while working in Islamic banking, insurance and the fund industry. According to Middle East website Zawya, Bermuda is likely to have its first Islamic financial institution up and running before the end of the year as it seeks to become a hub for that sector of the banking and finance industry. Islamic finance, which meets the requirements of the traditions of the Islamic religion, is a growing area, fuelled by the growth of the economies of many Muslim countries. Everyone should understand that by using a tax haven such as Bermuda, the Saudis and others who do business through Bahrain's myriad financial centers (such as China, Pakistan, or the UAE) will have a pathway that can and most likely will allow not only the Saudis, but other foreign interests to pour their "golden influence" into the mix of US electioneering, especially in light of the recent US Supreme Ct. decision allowing unfettered corporate (and union) funding of US elections. Foreign interests and foreign "royals" can do this by establishing a Bermuda foundation or Bermuda trust or corporation that purchases a controlling interest in any US corporation, foundation, or by funding the organization of a US union. See: Wikipedia.org for info about: Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010), ["... was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. The 5 — 4 decision resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air via video on demand a critical film about Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain — Feingold Act ...] What can counteract Saudi and foreign-source financial influence"? Answer: An aware, activist electorate dedicated to preserving the integrity of US values; values that are of their very essence diametrically opposed to fascism, monarchism, and Sharia. Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net |
|
THE GAZA FLOTILLA; WHO WON?
Posted by Moshe Dann, July 11, 2010. |
|
Although Israel's Navy succeeded in stopping a flotilla attempting to break the Gaza blockade it lost yet another important public relations battle. Organized in Turkey with government approval and sponsored by Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH), a "humanitarian aid organization" linked to terrorist groups, the flotilla highlighted the IHH, garnered sympathy for Gazans, and encouraged Hamas; Israel was condemned by many in the international community. So who won? Soldiers and passengers were injured; nine militants were killed when the soldiers were attacked and opened fire in self-defense. Could the incident have been handled better, or even avoided? Weeks before the Gaza-bound flotilla left port, at the end May, 2010, the Israeli government was aware of the problem and the potential whiplash. Israel's Defense Ministry, under Ehud Barak, worked out plans to enforce the blockade and apprehend the ships; Israel's Foreign Ministry was responsible for PR and the legal justification for stopping the flotilla. According to Israeli government sources, journalists were "unofficially" referred to a Danish government report on IHH, US court and CIA documents several days prior to the arrival of the flotilla. "Unofficially?" Why not officially? Why wasn't the IHH thoroughly exposed and the Turkish government held responsible? According to the Australian-based Talk Gaza organization, which provides information on the incident, Israel's Foreign Ministry circulated information on IHH "to some people at least five days before the incident." "Some people?" Who? Why not circulate it to everyone? "A number of journalists were also referred by various official sources to the few news articles that did discuss IHH days before the incident." How many journalists? And when? Was the FM staff overloaded, understaffed, or simply unaware of the magnitude of the problem? Asked why a press conference wasn't called before the engagement at sea, this journalist was told: "No one would come." But, that's admitting failure before the event took place. IHH won PR battle A serious international incident was brewing, and Israel's Foreign Ministry didn't understand the complexity of the threat, or how to respond. The prime minister was abroad on a speaking tour. The cabinet, and especially the acting prime minister, a former chief of staff, were not apprised? Who is responsible for this mess? The IHH had been banned from Israel some years earlier as part of the Union of Good, a terrorist organization, so Israel knew what could happen, or should have, yet essentially did nothing, except send out a few press releases. Relying on journalists to pick up the story and research the IHH, the Israeli government failed to provide the background and the urgency of the situation. Critical videos and official responses were provided only afterwards — untimely and inadequately. That may explain why the IHT/NYT editorialized on June 14, 2010: "The Israelis claim that Insani Yardim Vakfi is a dangerous organization with terrorist links. They have yet to offer any evidence to support that charge." The Foreign Ministry has not responded. The IHT noted on June 17 that "Israel added the Turkish pro-Palestinian group that sent an aid flotilla to Gaza last month to its terror watch list yesterday." "Yesterday?" What took them so long? Although the Israeli government asserted its concerns as the flotilla began, it treated the flotilla as a military objective, rather than political drama. The Gaza-bound flotilla failed to deliver its supplies and supporters, but that was never its intention. Getting world attention and recognition, the IHH won the PR battle. The commission of inquiry, under Judge Turkel, needs to examine not only what happened during the boarding, but why preparations were so inadequate. Editor's Note: Greeta Berlin, one of the people responsible for the Flotilla and the harm it did, wrote a comment claiming the IHH was just another religious charity — like the Catholic Charities. Jake in London in response said, "Greta's timimg is impeccable. Only today, Germany banned the IHH because of its ties with Hamas, an EU and US designated terrorist organisation. Oh Greta, is everyone who disagrees with you a Zionist??" Moshe Dann is a writer and journalist living in Jerusalem. He can be reached at moshedan@netvision.net.il |
|
GERMAN TOP INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL SAYS RIGHT-WINGERS, MUSLIM EXTREMISTS SHARE ANTI-SEMITISM
Posted by Sacha Stawski, July 11, 2010. |
|
This comes from the Associated Press. |
|
BERLIN — A top security official says he sees anti-Semitism in both right-wing and Muslim extremists in Germany. Heinz Fromm, president of the domestic intelligence agency, is quoted in Der Spiegel Sunday as saying both have "a similar picture of the enemy: Israel and the Jews overall." Fromm said that while neo-Nazis adhere to a racist anti-Semitism, Muslim extremists "are oriented toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." He said both groups have the idea "that Israel and the Jews have undue power that needs to be fought." Last month a group of Arab youths attacked and shouted anti-Semitic slogans at a Jewish dance group during a street festival in Hannover.
Sacha Stawski is with the Honestly Concerned organization. Contact him at sstawski@honestly-concerned.org |
|
AHMADINEJAD WORLD DX AND PRESCRIPTION; NGOS, THE 3RD PHASE OF WAR ON
ISRAEL; NETANYAHU DIDN'T ASK OBAMA FOR POLLARD'S RELEASE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 11, 2010. |
|
PETRAEUS, KARZAI DISAGREE ON LOCAL SELF-DEFENSE Gen. Petraeus proposes extending Gen. McChrystal's local self-defense plan to more outer villages. Villagers would be provided uniforms and arms. Former Taliban invited. A similar strategy worked in Iraq. It may not work in Afghanistan. So believes President Karzai. He is concerned that the local militias may install additional warlords working against the central government (IMRA, 7/10/10 from Joshua Partlow, Karen DeYoung, Rajiv Chandrasekaran of Washington Post). The trick is how to tailor programs to different cultures
SECURITY COUNCIL ACTS ON HIZBULLAH BLOCKING OF UNIFIL? 
The UN Security Council addressed the problem of Hizbullah-controlled villages blocking, attacking, and disarming UNIFIL forces sniffing out illegal arms caches. Some members think that the several incidents are coordinated. The Council unanimously "strongly deplores" the incidents, and "calls upon all parties" to respect the freedom of movement and safety of UNIFIL. French Ambassador Gerard Araud calls that a "clear statement" that "we cannot accept the obstacles to the freedom of movement of UNIFIL." (IMRA, 7/10/10 from Agence France Presse). It deplores the incidents and implores respect. How much does that impress the fanatics whom the Council addresses, the way President Obama does, afraid to name the offending side? Maybe the Council should have worded it, "strongly, strongly deplores." The Council was using what Bret Stephens describes in the current Commentary Magazine as the "soft diplomacy" that Pres. Obama has adopted. Mr. Stephens shows that soft diplomacy cannot work with hard-bitten cases, only with a culture wanting to cooperate. Only some Council members think that the several incidents are coordinated? They don't yet realize that Hizbullah has organized the 160 villages into a series of interlocking commands over its own troops embedded in them and therefore over the villages? Is that the UN agency supposed to maintain international security? In Lebanon, UNIFIL willy-nilly serves as a shield for terrorism.
AHMADINEJAD WORLD DIAGNOSIS AND PRESCRIPTION 
Iran's President Ahmadinejad diagnosed the world's condition as tyranny by great powers and his prescription is the Koran. He sees objections to the current world order [which objections he helps lead] as the beginning of that order's collapse (IMRA, 7/10/10). Since Ahmadinejad defies what he perceives as a collapsing United States and Israel, what makes U.S. President Obama think that sanctions and condemnation will bring Ahmadinejad to heel? He thinks he is bringing us to heel. Diplomacy and sanctions have failed with him, and "containment" will fail, as Bret Stephens explains in the current Commentary Magazine. U.S. policies do not take into account the cultures they attempt to deal with. Some of the U.S. blindness is willful. Incidentally, Ahmadinejad is a tyrant who aims to impose his tyranny upon the whole world in the name of that Koran. Islam is not centralized, but it needs a convention of Muslim scholars to set limits to the brutal means that tyrants such as Ahmadinejad utilize in their name. But who will protect the scholars from the radicals, Kalashnikovs in one hand, Koran in the other? And that's... the other side of the story.
ISRAELI SUPREME COURT FOUND BIASED AGAINST RIGHT The Association for the Preservation of State Lands from hostile take-over has issued a report accusing Israel's Supreme Court of bias against the Right. For greater objectivity, the Association studied the Court's preliminary procedures, taken before the legal merits of cases were laid out, just the cases' direction known. Criteria in evaluating each case included the number of sessions, their duration, which justices were assigned to them, and restraining and other interim orders. The study found a tremendous disparity in treatment of cases brought by leftists and rightists, attributable not to legal aspects, in that early stage, but to judges' personal, ideological bias. The study found that "...while left-wing petitions receive serious and rigorous consideration, similar suits brought by those identified with the right-wing [nationalist camp] are treated lightly and with derision." Petitions against alleged illegal Jewish building are taken more seriously than petitions against alleged illegal Arab building. Chief Justice Dorit Beinisch manipulates the Court toward that outcome, with her participation and her intervention against government decisions, the study is said to show. Conclusion: the public cannot place its confidence in its High Court (Arutz-7, 7/11/10). When Israel is called an oppressor of the Arabs, think of the many court rulings biased in favor of the Arabs. When Israel is called a democracy, think of the many court rulings that block decisions by elected officials because the self-perpetuating Supreme Court has no legal objection but does not like those decisions. When the government of Israel is called right-wing, think of how far Left the judiciary is.
NGOS, THE THIRD PHASE IN THE WAR ON ISRAEL The war on Israel has had three phases: (1) Armies; (2) Terrorism; and (3) NGOs. NGO Monitor head Prof. Gerald Steinberg points out that Israel has no strategy for the third phase, few bystanders realize this phase is deceiving them, and liberal democracies underwrite it. 
The flotilla incident illustrates phase III in action. Start with "IHH — a Turkish charity having close relations with jihadist groups. Add "European anti-Israel campaigners, including the International Solidarity Movement (ISM). Members of both groups co-operate with terrorists that goad Israel into using force, resulting in injuries and deaths. They know how to unleash massive diplomatic and political campaigns using false charges of war crimes, collective punishment, and similar allegations." Now lend respectability by human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International, Oxfam, Human Rights Watch, and regional allies. The presumption is to take these organizations' fund-raising mission statements seriously, as if genuine and as if these groups were objective and interested in human rights in the Arab-Israel conflict. But these groups are part of the same movement as IHH and ISM to defame Israel until it can be dismantled. The NGO network has habituated much of the public to automatically condemn Israel and automatically sympathize with Palestinian Arabs. The flotilla surprised the Israeli government with their violence, the followers' false characterization of it as Israeli aggression, and the resulting clamor to end or abate the Gaza embargo. The Harper government of Canada realized the deception and stopped subsidizing the not-so-human rights NGOs. Australia seems to be following suit. The EU usually has one-sided presentations. That may be changing, too. An EU Parliamentary sub-committee hearing requested by NGOs to review Israeli civil society under the pretext of examining human rights heard from "three EU-funded NGO speakers — a fringe Israeli who heads PCATI (the "Public Committee Against Torture in Israel"), Mossawa (led by radical Israeli-Arabs), and the Euro-Med Human Rights Network, which co-ordinates demonization among these and similar groups. Each spoke for more than 10 minutes, repeating the standard anti-Israel rhetoric, and praising bogus human rights defenders, including the IHH/ISM "Free Gaza" terrorists." An MP broke the monopoly of presentation by inviting Prof. Steinberg. The other NGOs, purported apostles of civil liberties, tried to squelch that opposition. They falsely accused NGO Monitor of being an agent of the Israeli government. Didn't fly. Then they persuaded the chair to limit his presentation to five minutes, but Steinberg managed to get 10. He offered the EU detailed evidence of NGO manipulation and deceit. That is a start, but one that promises to stop financing the dirty warfare of Phase III, a phase that protects the guilty who attack the innocent, in the name of ethics that the conventional NGOs pervert (IMRA, 7/10/10 from NGO Monitor). Considering that jihad is against the whole civilized world, it behooves Western governments to fight back, not subsidize the effort. Unfortunately, the media is biased, officials are misinformed, and the public is manipulated. Where is our Winston Churchill to rally our people and to declare we are in a Cold War? How symbolic that our Muslim-raised President tossed back to Britain a bust of Winston Churchill! For articles on the UN Goldstone Report, which relied almost
entirely upon those NGOs, click
here
and
here. )
ABBAS HONORING ANTI-U.S., ANTI-ISRAEL TERRORIST LEADERS For the second time in a week, Palestinian Authority head Abbas has honored recently deceased anti-U.S. and anti-Israel terrorist leaders. First recipient of the honor was Abu Daoud, mastermind of the Munich athlete massacre. Second is the Hizbullah clerical leader, Muhammad Fadlallah. Fadlallah's last request was to end the "Zionist entity's" existence. Among his final acts was a fatwa authorizing attacks on U.S. troops and Israelis. Abbas made solicitous phone calls and sent emissaries to the terrorists' families. He called Daoud his "brother." (IMRA, 7/11/10 from Palestinian Media Watch). Abbas' solidarity with the murderers whom he spent decades supervising makes him far from moderate. Yet Abbas is the one whom the American foreign policy establishment deems moderate and whom President Obama expects to make peace. Is Abbas deceiving President Obama or is Obama deceiving the American people? As for Israel's PM Netanyahu, he knows the peace process is a farce. Why does he go through with it? Has he made some Faustian deal, and if so, with whom? Who really pulls the strings in these sister democracies? How do my fellow Americans feel about U.S. support for someone who honors murderous anti-Americans? We are being played as fools. Our taxes go to support Abbas and his fellow terrorists. We get solicited funds from anti-Israel NGOs such as J Street and New Israel Fund (as exposed in many prior articles), in the name of helping Israel. This country needs tea parties for foreign policy, just as it has for domestic policy.
NETANYAHU FAILED TO ASK OBAMA FOR POLLARD'S RELEASE
Israel's PM Netanyahu asked Obama for help in getting Hamas' Israeli prisoner, freed, but failed to ask Obama to free America's Israeli prisoner, which action is within his power.
When Netanyahu's relations with Obama obviously were poor, he didn't ask for Pollard's release, so as not to further irritate them. Now that relations with Obama are ostentatiously good, he doesn't ask for Pollard's release, so as not to irritate them. When would he ask for Pollard's release? (IMRA, 7/11/10).
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
BEN GURION VS. OBAMA ON JERUSALEM
Posted by Yoram Ettinger, July 11, 2010. |
|
1. The views of David Ben Gurion — The Founding Father of the Jewish State — on Jerusalem are particularly pertinent at a time when President Obama entices illegal Arab construction in Jerusalem (by threatening Israel against demolition of illegal Arab homes), while pressuring Israel to refrain from legal Jewish construction in the Capital City of the Jewish People. 1,100 illegal Arab homes are built annually in Jerusalem and only 50 are demolished. Ben Gurion's position on the unique role of Jerusalem is very relevant at a time when the Oslo Process — and its derivatives until today — have demoted Jerusalem, the Heart of the Jewish People and its eternal capital to a "Negotiable Item." It is doubly relevant against the backdrop of a construction freeze in eastern Jerusalem, which was initiated by President Obama and has been enforced by the Israeli government. 2. Against awesome odds — including a US military embargo and a UN resolution to internationalize Jerusalem — Ben Gurion was determined to preserve Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem. He reacted constructively to US and global pressure: Constructing new Jewish neighborhoods on Jerusalem's 1949 cease-fire lines, settling tens of thousands of Jewish Olim (immigrants) in Jerusalem, upgrading transportation infrastructure to Jerusalem and relocating government agencies from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Currently, the Jewish State is under pressure — by the Obama Administration — to repartition Jerusalem, thus rewarding terrorism and fueling further violence. 3. "We have to resettle, immediately, the Old City of Jerusalem (Ben Gurion's Diary, June 8, 1967). "The Six Days War has reinstated the eternal capital of the Jewish People... We must, as soon as possible, transfer university faculties to Mount Scopus and construct there students and faculty housing. We must erect high tech factories north and south of the Old City [beyond the cease fire lines]. We have to settle 20,000-30,000 Jewish families in the Old City... (Ben Gurion Diary, July 31, 1967)." 4. "As you know, the UN General Assembly has decided, with a sizeable majority, to internationalize Jerusalem. This decision will not be implemented under any circumstances... We shall not collaborate with such a decision, which breaches the natural and historical right of the Jewish People in Zion... The State of Israel has had only one capital, the eternal Jerusalem. It was our capital 3,000 years ago and it will remain our capital until the end of times. As soon as the [1948/9] battles were over, we relocated government agencies to Jerusalem and installed the necessary transportation, economic and technical infrastructure to Jerusalem (Ben Gurion, Knesset speech, December 13, 1949). " "Jerusalem is an integral part of Israel and its eternal capital. No UN vote can change such a historical fact (Ben Gurion, Knesset speech, December 10, 1949)." 5. "Jerusalem is equal to the whole of the Land of Israel. Jerusalem is not just a central Jewish settlement. Jerusalem is an invaluable global historical symbol. The Jewish People and the entire world shall judge us in accordance with our steadfastness on Jerusalem (Ben Gurion, "We and Our Neighbors," p. 175. 1929)." Will contemporary Jewish leaders follow in the footsteps of Ben Gurion, or will they succumb to President Obama's pressure, thus elevating the failed Oslo Process over the future of Jerusalem? Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is a consultant on US-Israel relations as
well as the Chairman of Special Projects at the Ariel Center for
Policy Research. Formerly the Minister for Congressional Affairs to
Israel's Embassy in Washington, DC, Ettinger also served as Consul
General of Israel to the Southwestern US. He is a former editor of
Contemporary Mideast Backgrounder, and is the author of the Jerusalem
Cloakroom series of reports. Contact him at yoramtex@netvision.net.il
|
|
HOSTILITY TO THE JEWS HAS BEEN A STAIN ON THE WESTERN WORLD'S HONOR FOR CENTURIES
11jul10
Posted by Guitelet, July 11, 2010. |
|
The following statement has been signed by Jose Maria Aznar, David Trimble, John R. Bolton, Alejandro Toledo, Marcello Pera, Andrew Roberts, Fiamma Nirenstein, George Weigel, Robert F. Agostinelli and Carlos Bustelo. Mr. Aznar is a former prime minister of Spain. Mr. Trimble is a former first minister of Northern Ireland. Mr. Bolton is a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Mr. Toledo is a former president of Peru. Mr. Pera is a former president of the Italian Senate. Mr. Roberts is a British historian. Ms. Nirenstein is vice-president of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the Italian Chamber of Deputies. Mr. Weigel is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Mr. Agostinelli is managing director of the Rhône Group. Mr. Bustelo is a former minister of industry in Spain. |
|
Israel is a Western democracy and a normal country. Nonetheless, Israel has faced abnormal circumstances since its inception. In fact, Israel is the only Western democracy whose existence has been questioned by force, and whose legitimacy is still being questioned independently of its actions. The recent flotilla crisis in the Mediterranean provided yet another occasion for Israel's detractors to renew their frenzied campaign. It was so even before the facts of that tragic incident had come to light. Eyes were blind to the reasons why Israelhad to respond to the Gaza flotilla's clear provocation. Because we believe Israel is subjected to unfair treatment, and are convinced that defending Israel means defending the values that made and sustain our Western civilization, we have decided to launch the Friends of Israel Initiative. Our goal is to bring reason and decency back to the discussion about Israel. We are an eclectic group, coming from different countries and holding different opinions on a range of issues. It goes without saying that we do not speak for the State of Israel and we do not defend every course of action that it decides upon. We are united, however, by the following beliefs, principles and aims: First, Israel is a normal, Western democracy and should be treated as such. Its parliamentary system, legal traditions, education and scientific research facilities, and cultural achievements are as fundamental to it as to any other Western society. Indeed, in some of these areas, Israel is a world leader. Second, attempts to question Israel's basic legitimacy as a Jewish state in the Middle East are unacceptable to people who support liberal democratic values. The State of Israel was founded in the wake of United Nations Resolution 181, passed in 1947. It also arose out of an unbroken Jewish connection to the land that stretches back thousands of years. Israel does not derive its legitimacy, as some claim, from sympathy over the Holocaust. Instead, it derives legitimacy from international law and from the same right to self-determination claimed by all nations. Third, as a fully legitimate member of the international community, Israel's basic right to self-defense should not be questioned. Nor should it be forgotten that Israel faces unique security threats — from terror groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and from an Iran seeking nuclear weapons. United Nations condemnations of Israel arising from last year's Goldstone Report on the recent war in Gaza, for example, ignore the security challenges that Israel faces. All democracies should oppose such campaigns, which ultimately undermine the legitimacy not merely of Israel but of the U.N. itself. Fourth, we must never forget that Israel is on our side in the battle against Islamism and terror. Israel stands on the front line of that fight as a bulwark of Judeo-Christian values. The belief that the democratic world can sacrifice Israel in order to placate Islamism is profoundly wrong and dangerous. Appeasement failed in the 1930s and it will fail today. Fifth, attempts by people of good faith to facilitate peace between Israel and the Palestinians are always to be supported. But outsiders should beware of attempting to impose their own solutions. Israelis and Palestinians should know how to build a viable peace on their own. We can help them, but we cannot force them. Sixth, we must be alive to the dangers that the campaign against Israel poses in reawakening anti-Semitism. Hostility to the Jews has been a stain on the Western world's honor for centuries. It is a matter of basic self-respect that we actively confront and oppose new manifestations of an old and ugly problem. The Friends of Israel Initiative has come together to encourage men and women of goodwill to reconsider their attitudes toward the Jewish state, and to relocate those attitudes inside the best of Western traditions rather than the worst. We urge them to recognize that it is in our own best interests that an increasingly jaded relationship between Israel and many of the world's other liberal democracies is rescued and reinvigorated before it is too late for us all. Contact Guitelet by email at guitelet@aol.com |
|
ARAB MK HELPED LIBYAN SHIP; MK BEN-ARI: SINK IT
Posted by Hillel Fendel, July 11, 2010. |
|
Amid conflicting reports as to the destination of the blockade-busting Libyan ship, it has been learned that MK Ahmed Tibi was involved. MK Ben-Ari says it should be sunk, which would be a legal act if done within Israeli territorial waters. Dr. Tibi, an Arab Knesset Member of the Raam-Taal party and past official advisor to Yasser Arafat, confirmed Sunday morning that he had been in touch with the organizers of a Libyan ship headed eastward. The captain originally said he was headed for Gaza, in an attempt to break Israel's naval blockade, and Libyan backers repeated again today that this is still their plan. It was reported last night that Israeli diplomatic efforts had borne fruit and that the boat would set anchor in Egypt instead. Tibi said he gave the organizers a list of medicines needed in Gaza. The ship is reportedly laden with 2,000 tons of food and medicines. Meanwhile, MK Dr. Michael Ben-Ari (National Union) said he believes that this latest threat against Israeli sovereignty should be met with force. "In order to stop this flood that could lead to dozens of ships and thousands of refugees storming our borders, this ship should be sunk." "This is the only way they will realize that we are 'crazy' and that we will do whatever necessary to defend our right to exist," Ben-Ari said. "It will cost us in the short run, but will have great benefits in the long run." Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that the Libyan ship is an "unnecessary provocation... Goods can be delivered to Gaza via our Ashdod port, after they are properly checked. We will not allow weapons and the like for combat-supporters in Gaza. We advise the ship to allow itself to be escorted to Ashdod, or to sail directly to El-Arish [Egypt]." Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor at Arutz-Sheva (www.Israel National News.com). |
|
RADICAL ISLAM'S FASCIST LINKS; PAKISTAN BOMBER KILLS 55; SUBVERSIVE
ISRAELI PROFESSORS: UPDATE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 10, 2010. |
|
TERRORIST TO BE EXTRADITED TO NEW YORK 
Tariq ur Rehman accesses his local Pakistani media and learns that the U.S. wants him extradited to stand trial for a plot to bomb New York subways and also to strike at Britain. [I was on my way to a London airport, to fly back to New York, when the airliner plot was foiled.] Norway arrested three immigrants suspected of belonging to al-Qaeda and in the same case. One, from Uzbekistan, had come for political asylum. The others were a Uighur from China and a Kurd. The U.S. is searching for a Saudi. The European Court of Human Rights is weighing whether to extradite three more suspects from Britain, who contend that the U.S. might sentence them to long sentences (Alistair MacDonald, Cassell Bryan-Low, Wall St. J., 7/9/10, A2). If the suspicions be correct, we have another example of people from violent cultures getting political asylum in Western countries where they will attack their new governments that took pity on them. The lesson is to deny asylum to, say, fascists fleeing Communist rule. Don't be suckers. Likewise, don't go overboard cheating justice in behalf of the worst criminals — those who try to murder civilians for ideological reasons — lest they be punished severely. Extradite and say good riddance. Otherwise, while Europe is being so liberal about human rights, radical Islam is getting close to ridding the whole continent of human rights. Note that these suspects, like many convicted of terrorism, come from all over and go all over. Jihad is a pandemic. Therefore, anti-Zionist/antisemites do our country and civilization a fatal disservice when they seek to blame all the problems on Israel and demand political correctness about discussing the problems from Islamo-fascism. The common element of jihad all over the world is not Israel but a radical or fascist outgrowth of Islam.
NEW YORK TIMES ON FLOTILLA, TURKEY, ISRAEL, OBAMA 
Nearly six weeks later, Turkey and Israel are still stoking anger over the disastrous Israeli attack on a Gaza-bound aid ship. Their posturing and threats are playing into the hand of extremists," write the editors of the New York Times. "Israel resists having an international investigation — the only chance of getting Turkey to answer questions." Turkey threatened to "take any option," if no apology is made. PM Netanyahu said that Israelis "regret the loss of life," but they cannot apologize, "because its soldiers had to defend themselves to avoid being lynched by a crowd." Some members of Congress are adding to the tensions with anti-Turkey rants and threats to punish the Turkish government" if it "stays on its present heading." President Obama urged Turkey's PM Erdogan "to cool the anti-Israel rhetoric. We hope he sent the same message when he met with PM B. Netanyahu." (7/10/10.) Obama is taking his own advice, cooling his own anti-Israel rhetoric. However, when a ideological demagogue cools rhetoric, he is making a tactical move, not changing underlying policy. The U.S. should be studying how far into radical Islam Erdogan is taking Turkey. Does the Times seriously expect a radical Muslim to answer investigators' questions truthfully, when his ideology authorizes deception for the cause? Unfortunately, Obama undermines U.S. national security by seeing jihad only as attacks and fronts, not an ideology to be countered. Congress would be wrong to posture, right to consider how far into radical Islam Erdogan is taking Turkey. In authorizing funds for the Palestinian Authority, especially its military forces, and for the Lebanese Army, Congress demonstrates its own failure to see the global sweep of jihad against civilization. We need Congressional ears, not earmarks. The editorial gives both sides' versions of the flotilla incident, but then unfairly takes the Islamist side by referring to an "Israeli attack." The evidence is pretty clear now that the Israelis were attacked as soon as they landed. One could understand describing the event neutrally until investigation is done, but not taking the Islamist side, which prepared weapons in advance and mobbed the descended Israelis. The editorial does not show Israel doing anything to stoke anger. Sure Israel issues advisories against touring Turkey, where the masses express hatred against Israel. Sure it removes its defense advisers from Turkey, while it figures out whether it has to defend itself from Turkey. Sure it impounds ships needed in its investigation. The very newspaper that calls for investigation also calls for the evidence to disappear! Sure it does not offer compensation for ships that came not to deliver aid — that could have been done as an Israeli port — but to run a legal blockade. Those ships' owners took a calculated risk, and now they should be compensated? The editors got all mixed up over their appeasement of Islam, favoring of Obama, and traditional anti-Zionism. One of the deceptions and self-deceptions of anti-Zionists is to equate the two sides, even though one side is totalitarian and the other is not. We did not equate the two sides when the totalitarian enemy was Nazism and Communism. Why now, when the enemy is Islamo-fascism? A reader alleged that the Israelis attacked civilians at sea. Where the boarding occurred is immaterial under the conditions of that embargo. Armed people attacked the Israelis. The mob's status as civilians at that time is dubious and immaterial. The mob attacked, the commandos belatedly defended. Belatedly, because two had been stabbed and a third badly beaten. Unfortunately, for anti-Zionists who blame the Jews for everything, facts are immaterial. We are in an era of revived antisemitism.
RADICAL ISLAM'S FASCIST LINKS Historian Jeffrey Hart recently found in State Dept. archives more documentary evidence of Radical Islam's modern origin in concert with fascism of the 1930s and 1940s. Nazi doctrines inspire current Islamo-fascists. Hence the current allegations of Jewish conspiracies and proposal of genocide as a solution. There already was much such evidence. However, political correctness and appeasement make most Western intelligentsia avert their eyes to it. They censor themselves and denounce liberals from Muslim areas. They leave the field to the Islamists, to frame the picture. They let apologists for radical Islam claim that the Arabs' Holocaust era collaboration with the Nazis merely was for help against colonialist Britain and France. Proposing genocide, as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem did and acted on, was not necessary for throwing off British rule (Paul Berman, author of The Flight of the Intellectuals, Wall St. J., 7/10/10, A13). One of those Nazi doctrines, that an anti-Zionist reader applies to Zionism and Israel, is that they consider themselves superior. The Islamists, like the Nazis, attribute to Jews the same evil characteristics they have. The Nazis considered Germans superior. They murdered alleged inferiors, as the Islamists now urge. By contrast, Judaism has no designs against other people and considers other people worthy morally if they follow the basic pre-Judaism moral code of Noah, without having to believe in Judaism. Zionism expresses part of Judaism, though some less observant Jews participate in it. Israel has a million Arab citizens with equal rights, except that the country was founded for Jewish self-determination, national development, and in-gathering of exiles, so Jews can become citizens upon arrival. Many countries do likewise for their nationality. In Arab areas, Jews are forbidden or subjugated. Christians are second class citizens, often banned from office, and are being pressed out of the Mideast. In most Muslim countries, Muslims do not have many rights, women even fewer. Radical Islam is driving to take over the world. It long has been striving to exterminate Israel. Israel is trying to preserve its tiny area. So what do the anti-Zionists warn against? They warn against Israel. And the anti-Zionists' own countries, also subject to jihad, are diverted from self-defense from jihad because of anti-Zionism, political correctness, and appeasement.
PAKISTAN BOMBER KILLS 55 
A suspected Taliban suicide-bomber killed at least 55 people outside of Peshawar, Pakistan. The target probably was a government office of tribal elders resisting the Taliban. The known victims were people from all walks of Pakistani life (Zahid Hussain, Rehmat Mehsud, Wall St. J., 7/10/10, A9). Radical Muslims are trying to take over the whole world, not just take over non-Muslims. Their most numerous murder victims, probably after Hindus, are Muslims. In each Muslim locality affected, people can see that radical Islam is their enemy. Where the enemy still has not struck, they may not see it. When Western forces aggressively defend themselves from the common enemy, many Muslims consider it a war on Islam. What do they consider the Islamo-fascist war on them? Incidentally, they do not have to worry about Israel attacking
them, they have to worry about radical Muslims attacking them.
SUBVERSIVE ISRAELI PROFESSORS: UPDATE Israeli leftist Gavi Sheffer wrote on 7/8/10 that the Education Minister has chilled academic freedom, after suggesting that action be taken against professors who call for boycotting Israeli universities. Mr. Scheffer complained that "critical academics" [i.e., far leftists] can hardly ever air their views in the media. He wrote that in an Op-Ed for Haaretz, the daily that is so far leftist, that it allows only a weekly, token article from a non-leftist. Who said leftists don't have a sense of humor! (Prof. Steven Plaut of Haifa U., 7/9/10). (For earlier piece, click here.) Like other anti-Zionists, leftists combine whining about having difficulty getting into the media, while they screen out non-leftists from much of it and certainly from many university social studies departments. Anti-Zionists pat themselves on the back as brave for criticizing Israel, as if Israel were not the international scapegoat that almost everybody piles onto, now. Prof. Plaut relates that Ben-Gurion University Prof. Neve Gordon, who calls for boycotting the University, also works with Holocaust deniers, neo-Nazis, and other antisemites. A fellow department head at Ben-Gurion said that if the rector fired Gordon for subversion, he would call out on strike all the department heads. He explained that to fire Gordon would violate academic freedom. At that same university, Prof. Emeritus Yeruham Leavitt, who teaches bio-ethics, observed that one should be tolerant of homosexuals but homosexuality can be contained and children raised by same-sex couples are denied a normal upbringing. Instead of debating him on those points, the University said it cannot tolerate professors who offend students there. It fired him. Where was his academic freedom? Why has he less academic freedom to air opinions, than the certainly offensive Prof. Gordon, who tries to wreck the university and subvert his country in wartime? The answer is that the Left does not believe in academic freedom or freedom of speech and press. It believes in license for itself and repression of its opponents. When so many professors teach defeatism and national guilt, how can the country mount its best defense against jihad aiming to exterminate them all?
NETANYAHU'S NEW YORK SPEECH A transcript of PM Netanyahu's speech at the Council on Foreign
Relations, in New York, has come out. In it, he asserted a principle,
"two states for two nations" and his complaint that the Arab-Israel
conflict persists because the Arabs refuse to recognize Israel as a
state of the Jewish nationality (IMRA, 7/9/10).
The Arab nation already has more than 20 states. There already is an Arab state in Palestine. In fact, Jordan occupies 79% of Palestine, which the Romans renamed from Judea and the Land of Israel. "Two states for two peoples" would imply that since the Arab state would bar Jews, Israel would transfer its million Arabs into the new Arab state. Netanyahu did not propose that. Then what principle is he working on? Is his principle, a sovereign state for genocidal fanatics, and a million sympathetic Muslims in Israel, where they are radicalizing to overthrow the Jewish state?
PALESTINIAN ARAB NEGOTIATOR'S PRINCIPLE ON BORDERS 
Palestinian Authority chief negotiator Saeb Erekat has a principle of his own. He calls for his organization to gain sovereignty from the 1967 border (IMRA, 7/9/10). Why is that a principle? It never has been explained. For one thing, it is based on an erroneous concept that in 1967, that Green Line was a border. It was not a border. Israel had no border on that side, because it had no peace treaty there. The Green Line is an armistice line where the opposing armies ended up in 1949. Jordan, which had seized Judea and Samaria, retained those provinces until 1967, when it attacked Israel again. The only principle I can see is that Israel should not gain more territory, and the Arabs, who already officially possess 79% of the former Mandate, should get an additional piece that their fellow Arabs had seized by aggression. The principle here is that Arabs should gain territory by aggressive warfare.
EU-U.S. ANTI-TERRRORISM AGREEMENT 
The EU and the U.S. reached an agreement on combating terrorism. The two parties worked out a procedure enabling the U.S. to tap into the EU banking information system, to secure intelligence for use against terrorism, without unduly hampering European privacy. Financial transfers are a key aspect of terrorism, and detecting and impeding them are a key aspect of counter-terrorism (IMRA, 7/9/10).
WHY OBAMA EXPECTS PEACE BETWEEN P.A. AND ISRAEL 
Interviewed by Israeli TV, President Obama explained why he expects peace to be made between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. Obama also defended his Administration as being the best one for
Israeli security. It was the same interview in which, as described in
my earlier report,
He expects peace because Netanyahu is a statesman, he said, and because the Palestinian Authority leaders, Abbas and Fayyad, are "moderates" (IMRA, 7/10/10). An earlier report documents Abbas recently calling for war on Israel. Many earlier reports show them as extremist. Does Obama not know they are extremist? Then he is ignorant, naïve, and dangerous. Does he know they are extremist? Then he wants false credit for having made peace or he wants to appease the Arabs if not have Israel destroyed. An informed and decent President would not proceed with the farce of a peace process and empower extremists who are allied to the general jihad confronting the U.S..
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
HIZBOLLAH'S PREPARATIONS FOR WAR — ROUND 2. YOUR HELP NEEDED
Posted by Dave Alpern, July 10, 2010. |
|
The solid and irrefutable evidence is available for anyone open and fair-minded enough to see and acknowledge it. This isn't "propaganda" or "claims" by one party or another. Southern Lebanon has been hijacked once again. If Hezbollah chooses to launch rockets yet again at Israel, the latter will be faced yet again with the terrible prospect of firing back on civilians deliberately and wickedly used as human shields. We will yet again face hysterical charges of "disproportionate force" and "war crimes." We already know that mainstream media (MSM) deliberately refuse to report these blatant and shameless violations of international law. We know that the UN ignores them and seeks to blame Israel only for any "violations" of totally useless UN resolutions. Israel's multiple Arab enemies are skillfully setting Israel up for another horrible PR disaster. Please, people... send the link below to your presidents, prime ministers, Congressmen, Senators, Members of Parliament, clergymen... anyone and everyone who can increase awareness of this intolerable and indefensible situation. Resist efforts to dismiss the IDF's efforts as propaganda or "slanted" or "unimportant". It is inconceivable that the Muslims will forever get a "free pass" for their monstrous barbarism. Thank you,
This below is by Stuart Palmer. It is an ICAN Action Alert entitled " Israeli Citizens Action Network For volunteer Public Diplomacy." |
|
The Flotilla — Will it or won't it? Friends, The Israel Defense Force (IDF) has released information, now declassified, on how Hezbollah uses Lebanese villages as military bases. The full announcement can be read here. There are intelligence maps as well as a 3D animated clip illustrating how Hezbollah, in the four years since the Second Lebanon War, has turned over 100 villages in South Lebanon into military bases. These maps and the 3D clip illustrate how Hezbollah stores their weapons near schools, hospitals and residential buildings in the village of al-Khiam, all against the principles of international law. Similar tactics are used in villages across southern Lebanon, essentially using the residents as human shields, in gross violation of UN Resolution 1701. al-Khiam was used as a rocket launching site during the Second Lebanon war. During the Second Lebanon war, Hezbollah stored their weapons in open areas for the most part, which enabled the IDF to locate and destroy their stores. In the four years since then, Hezbollah has pursued a tactic of moving their weapons into civilian villages, essentially institutionalizing the tactic of using human shields on a large scale. ACTION ALERT — Please try your best to bring this information to the attention of the world media by a) writing letters, editorial articles, phone in programs on your local radio or TV. It is essential that the world is informed of the rules of war that Hizbollah intend to use in contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention. b) Those of you operating in Rapid Response Groups (RRR) have a good opportunity to help get this message across. c) if you have any personal contacts with journalists or politicians, please bring this to their attention. Stuart Palmer — Director
Contact Dave Alpern at daveyboy@bezeqint.net |
|
RELIGION OF PEACE' IN ACTION: MUSLIM MOB KILLS WIFE, CHILDREN OF CHRISTIAN IN PAKISTAN
Posted by John J. Facino, Sr., July 9, 2010. |
|
A Muslim mob in Jhelum, Pakistan murdered the wife and four children of a Christian last month, but local authorities are too afraid of the local Muslim leader to file charges, according to area Muslim and Christian sources. Jamshed Masih, a police officer who was transferred 50 kilometers (31 miles) from Gujrat to Jhelum, Punjab Province, said a mob led by Muslim religious leader Maulana Mahfooz Khan killed his family on June 21 after Khan called him to the local mosque and told him to leave the predominantly Muslim colony. Jhelum is 85 kilometers (53 miles) south of Islamabad. "You must leave with your family, no non-Muslim has ever been allowed to live in this colony — we want to keep our colony safe from scum," Khan told Masih, the bereaved Christian told Compass. Editor's Note: The following comes from the PoliticalIslam.com website, published by Bill Warner, It was edited by Asma Marwan. Bulletin of Christian Persecution: June 3 — June 28, 2010 June 3, 2010
June 7, 2010
Pakistan
June 13, 2010
June 14, 2010
June 15, 2010
Somalia (hat tip to InfidelsAreCool)
June 16, 2010
Egypt (Hat tip to Pajamas Media)
Pakistan (Hat tip to JihadWatch)
June 17, 2010
Morocco (Hat tip to JihadWatch)
Kyrgystan (Hat tip to InfidelsAreCool)
Egypt (translated by Raymond Ibrahim. Hat tip to JihadWatch)
June 18, 2010
June 22, 2010
June 26, 2010
June 28, 2010
Bekasi, Indonesia
John J. Facino is with Wake Up America. Write to wakeupamericans@comcast.net This article appeared in the Christian Post
|
|
A MODEST AND SOUND PROPOSAL
Posted by Paul Lademain, July 9, 2010. |
|
Message to Jordan: Here is a modest but sound proposal which the "peace loving king" of Jordan cannot refute or refuse: If Jordan fails or refuses to establish a new state within its current borders for all the arabs who want to become "Muslim Palestinians" — 90% of them already live in Jordanian ghettos — then Jordan MUST cede its lands back to Israel from which they were illegally taken. (OK — carve out a small region the size of Monaco for the "Jordanian royals" — if they want to call it their kingdom, well and good, just so long as the "kingdom" doesn't try to attack or undermine Israel.) All arabs and muslims unhappy in or disloyal to Israel will be resettled in the new state to be created within the borders of Jordan. Jerusalem will remain totally owned and controlled by Israel and the arabs will be removed to Mecca from their perch on Israel's Temple Mount. If Shimon Peres weeps for his dear dear Israeli Islamic anarchists, then he and his cohorts can join their dear arab seditionists in Mecca or else return to their respective homelands in Poland and Russia. Modest proposal # 2: If the arab palestinians attack Israel, it will be treated as a declaration of war against Israel and Israel will be free to retaliate vigorously, with all of its means and none of this "exercise restraint" nonsense that customarily emanates from the Saudi-sponsored bureaucrats and infiltrators occupying America's State Dept. (The Saudis are the major contributors to Hillary's husband's prezzie library — another good reason why all presidential libraries must be nationalized.) Viva Israel and Saludos to the Patriots of Israel and praise for Geert Wilders from the SC4Z. Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net |
|
KINGS, EMIRS, AND SHAYKHS: THE SURVIVAL OF TRADITIONAL REGIMES IN THE PERSIAN GULF
Posted by Barry Rubin, July 9, 2010. |
|
During the early 1980s I was asked to give a briefing for the head of the Toyota auto company and other enterprises. It was just after the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat and during the height of the Iran-Iraq war, so regional instability was much on the mind of everyone. After I finished my talk, Mr. Toyota asked a question in Japanese which was quickly translated. "This is all very interesting," he responded, "but what we really want to know is the date on which the Saudi monarchy will fall." Before I could answer, the head of the delegation said, "We know the date and are willing to tell you but first we would like to renegotiate our fees." I think he was joking, though it was not the most tactful thing to say. When I did answer, I explained that the Saudi monarchy was very strong and likely to survive for a long time to come. Almost 30 years later, I see no reason to change that assessment. If you had told experts in the mid-1960s that a half-century later every king and emir then ruling in the Persian Gulf would still be there, most would have been astonished. After all, these regimes seemed representative of a bygone, even medieval, era. Surely, modernity would sweep them away. Certainly, militant Arab nationalists-backed up generally by the regimes in Egypt, Syria, and Iraq-were eager to do so. After 1979, the radical Islamists in Iran and their local sympathizers worked hard to foment revolution. Yet all these regimes are still in power, in Bahrain and Kuwait, Oman and Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Indeed, in broad terms, these regimes are flourishing and none of them faces the threat of imminent overthrow. They have joined together in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) so it is possible to refer to these six countries collectively as the GCC states. It would be easy to say, of course, that this political stability is due to wealth from petroleum and natural gas, a treasure even more precious when one compares the large amount of income to the relatively small population of these states. But that is misleading. First, this very wealth has made these countries the target for blackmail, direct assault, and internal subversion. After all, they have weathered the Iranian revolution, the Iran-Iraq war, Iranian attacks on tanker traffic, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the U.S.-led overthrow of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the challenge from al-Qaida, and much more. No region of the world has been through more upheavals than this one. Second, wealth does not merely promote stability; it also undermines tradition and the status quo. This is especially true when vast amounts of money, material goods, as well as modern ideas and methods pour into these countries. Nothing could be more destabilizing to such conservative, religious, and traditionalist societies than an extremely intense dose of modernization, probably stronger and more intensive than that faced by any other countries in history. Third, at times oil prices dipped far lower thus turning the GCC states' surpluses into deficits when their high internal spending is taken into account. Not all has been rosy economically for them by any means. Thus, these regimes deserve high marks for managing their situations well and, of course, these rulers know their societies far better than foreign observers who would advise them to do things differently. The price, certainly, has been an absence of democracy, a failure to expand rights, and the continuation of women's status as second-class citizens generally. In exchange, the citizens of the GCC states have gained much higher living standards, though that doesn't mean that poverty has been altogether banished, especially in Saudi Arabia. In addition to all this, the GCC states have to handle a difficult diversity in their populations. This is of two types. On the one hand, each of these countries has a very large proportion of non-citizen foreigners living on their territory as "guest workers." This sector is kept docile by rotation, sending out longer-term residents and bringing in new ones; of course by the rich financial rewards in comparison to what they'd be earning at home, and repression. There has never been a single instance in which this large population has threatened the host country's political stability. Perhaps the closest was when the large Palestinian minority in Kuwait was accused of collaborating with the Iraqi occupation army and was almost totally deported with little trouble. Palestinians have never been allowed into Saudi Arabia in very large numbers, presumably to forestall trouble from radicals among them. On the other hand, and more problematic, has been the different groups among the local citizen population. Bahrain has a Sunni ruling group and a much larger Shia majority, which has led to friction in the past. Kuwait boasts both Sunni and Shia communities which have gotten along in relative peace. The Saudis, whose Wahabi faith is austerely Sunni and explicitly hostile to Shiism, have a Shia minority of about 15 percent, concentrated in the strategic Eastern Province. There have been attempts to appeal to this group by Tehran-connected Islamist radicals, featuring the fact that Iran is a country where Shias rule. While the other GCC states have seen only sporadic terrorism-Oman defeated a Marxist revolutionary war back in the 1970s-Saudi Arabia defeated a serious threat from al-Qaida. That group, it should be remembered, was created by Usama bin Ladin for the purpose of overthrowing the monarchy. At times, Saudi counterterrorist forces have evidenced considerable incompetence but overall they performed effectively and stamped out the attempted insurgency. Since 2003, the GCC states have had to deal with a new set of problems. The overthrow of the Iraqi regime removed the old Iraqi threat but also augmented the Iranian one, made even worse by Iran's drive for nuclear weapons. In addition, the sight of another Shia-led state next door worried the Sunni-dominated states lest revolt spread or Iraq would become an Iranian client. How did the monarchies deal with this situation? Most immediately, they exported some of their own extremism to Iraq, encouraging young men to go there to fight against the Shias. This got rid of potentially troublesome Islamist-oriented youth while also undermining the Shia power which seemed to them to be so dangerous. Ironically, of course, this put the GCC states on the same side as Iran's ally, Syria, providing funds and fighters to kill American soldiers in Iraq, not to mention Iraqi Shia civilians. From their own standpoint, however, it worked rather well. Another way of exporting terrorism, albeit less deliberate, was the decision of Saudi terrorists to attack Western targets, most symbolically demonstrated by the fact that almost all the September 11, 2001, terrorists were Saudis. Al-Qaida, as mentioned above, was originally an organization designed to foment revolution within Saudi Arabia but which has directed almost all its energy elsewhere. Finally, Saudi doctrine has encouraged the idea that terrorism against Muslims is bad but terrorism against non-Muslims is quite acceptable, almost recommended. These stratagems may have done a bit of damage to the kingdom's international image but have not had any significant costs. Regarding their own security, GCC states have pursued a balanced approach. Here, it is useful to recall the history of how the kingdoms have maintained their security. Gulf regional politics functioned as a triangle in which two powerful states-Iraq and Iran-confronted the half-dozen weak ones. Before the Iranian revolution, when the Shah was in power and a radical Arab nationalist Iraq wanted to overthrow the Arab kingdoms, Iran was their protector. Once the Islamist revolution happened in Iran in 1979, Iraq became their protector against that country and doctrine, most obviously during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. Increasingly, since the 1970s, the United States increasingly entered the picture as an external protector. Once Saddam decided to attack Kuwait in 1990, it was clear that neither Tehran nor Baghdad could be counted on and the United States became even more important. True, there were negatives to dependence on a non-Muslim state whose policies often made it unpopular, but the GCC states did not hesitate when their survival was in question, as seen in the 1990-1991 Kuwait crisis. In theory, during the post-Saddam era, the United States, with European help, should have been a satisfactory pillar whose power could balance off the continued Iranian threat. The GCC states also opposed Iranian ambitions to a degree which, given their usual caution, was relatively high. The willingness of Saudi Arabia to confront Iran's ally Syria, over Lebanon, was notable. It might be noted that Syrian and Iranian backing for Hizballah was seen in Riyadh as another example of Shia expansionism. The strategic problem for the GCC states, however, is that the United States has shown itself to be weak, both in general and in confronting Iranian-Syrian influence, especially under the administration of President Barack Obama. The president spent his first year seeking engagement with Tehran which, whatever its other implications signaled to the GCC states that they were partly on their own. They adjusted their strategy to include a larger measure of getting along with Iran and appeasing it. After all, Iran was much closer to America and much more willing to use violence. If Iran was going to emerge as the leading-and nuclear-power in the Persian Gulf they would have to adjust to that situation to ensure their own survival. Thus, on one hand, the GCC states would be delighted to see the United States block Iran from getting nuclear weapons or even to see Israel attack and destroy such facilities, but they will keep a low profile publicly to avoid trouble. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, the Saudis might try to get some of their own though the likelihood of a serious Saudi effort to buy such weapons is often exaggerated. Consequently, given all these problems, the question of how these regimes have survived with such apparent ease a modern world and regional atmosphere that is so hostile to them should be one of the most-studied issue in contemporary political analysis. The foundation of this success is their considerable traditional legitimacy and their massive financial assets. But that's not all. Internationally, as has been noted above, the use of a balance of power has been central. They have sought a protector against the most threatening force while also employing appeasement of the most dangerous local power in order to reduce the size of the threat. What is most notable about the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in this regard is that it came in the face of strenuous GCC, especially Kuwaiti but also Saudi Arabia, efforts to keep Baghdad happy. This factor made the attack all the more enraging for the GCC countries, and most of all the Saudis. What is the secret of the kings and emirs in terms of domestic survival? The use of money to satisfy and co-opt people plus the calculated use of repression have been mentioned. In addition, however, a very important choice has been to slow rather than accelerate reform. A conventional analysis by Western observers would be to urge more rights, change, and democracy in the belief that these would be stabilizing forces. But the contrary is true. To go too fast-to go even at a moderate speed-would antagonize the powerful conservative forces in these societies, most notably Islamic clerics who mostly support the regimes but who would switch to the revolutionary Islamist side if they thought their rulers to be impious. Going too fast would have been the main domestic danger to these regimes and even though their rejection of reform entails more oppression, from a regime interests' standpoint they have been clever to do so. (One might have an interesting discussion on whether they learned from the Iranian shah's eagerness to bring social change to his country as a cause of the revolution there.) Hand in hand with that approach was the continuation of the traditional foundation of the regimes' power. Of course the Saudi and other royal families have often provided an example of corruption and dissolution that runs quite contrary to their desired image of piety and traditional tribal virtue, yet enough family members have behaved properly-or at least have kept their vices fairly secret-to avoid undermining their prestige irreparably. It should also be emphasized that none of these are "one-man" dictatorships, in contrast to many nominally left-oriented dictatorships in the Third World. The royal families are large, members are distributed as watchdogs to many key posts (including in the military), and enough commoners are brought into the power elite (albeit in subordinate roles) to provide a lot of safeguards against a coup or revolution. Some of these royals are very capable people and so while it certainly happens that incompetents are put in place due to their lineage, this problem is kept limited. Similarly, the family has some autonomy in choosing the monarch, allowing for the most feeble or incompetent to be discarded despite their seniority. The regimes have also made good use of both repression and corruption. As Machiavelli taught, these tools can be well or badly used. Repression, to be most effective, must focus on real threats rather than a generalized intimidation which increases social resentment to the point of revolt. (This is another mistake made by the shah.) Moreover, oppositionists must be given an escape valve that allows them to change sides, an action which is a most profitable one in the GCC states. At the same time, though, punishment must be severe enough to intimidate any but the most determined revolutionaries prepared to sacrifice their lives. The GCC states have been very effective in adjusting their blend of repressive and cooptive policies. A similar point can be made regarding corruption. If corruption is used to the benefit of too narrow a group, it provokes tremendous resentment. But if it is spread widely, then it will be a positive force for stability, not only buying off key elements yet also giving many others the hope that if they support the regime and behave such riches could come to them also. It should also be noted that business is largely tied to the ruling family while intellectuals and professionals are largely tied to the state bureaucracy, limiting the growth of a completely independent class which sees its interest in conflict with that of the rulers. The bottom line, then, has been that the GCC rulers have shown a strong sense of survival and maneuverability which has allowed them to survive well into the twenty-first century. There is no strong reason to believe that they will not continue to do so in decades to come.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and
"Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press).
His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).
Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at
http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html.
Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com
|
|
THIS IS A GOOD WAY OF SAYING IT
Posted by Ralph Rubinek, July 9, 2010. |
|
This was written by Jeffrey T. Kuhner,
columnist for The Washington Times,
president of the Edmund Burke Institute and the
daily host of the "Kuhner Show" on WTNT 570-AM
(www.talk570.com) from 5 to 7 p.m.
It is archived at
|
|
President Obama is betraying the Jews. He is a cultural Muslim whose sympathies lie with the Islamic world in its life-death struggle against Israel. Unless American Jews wake up and speak out against Mr. Obama's pro-Arab, anti-Israel policies, the Jewish state faces a possible nuclear war — and even annihilation. Mr. Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this week. The goal: to repair the public rift in relations between Washington and Jerusalem. "The bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable," Mr. Obama said. "It encompasses our national security interests, our strategic interests, but most importantly the bond of two democracies who share a common set of values and whose people have grown closer and closer as time goes on." Don't believe him. In front of reporters, Mr. Obama may praise the Jewish state. But behind the scenes, he is selling the Jews down the river. According to a recent story in World Tribune, a prominent intelligence news website, administration officials have assured the Saudi royal family that Mr. Obama is determined to pressure Mr. Netanyahu into accepting an independent Palestinian state encompassing the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital. Mr. Obama — like many in the Arab world — believes that the key to Middle East peace is resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue. It isn't. Rather, an independent Palestine will be an Islamic stake aimed at the heart of the Jewish state. Israel's withdrawal to pre-1967 borders will leave Jerusalem vulnerable to an all-out military assault. The Arabs will have the strategic means to implement their overriding ambition since the creation of Israel in 1948: wiping out the Jews. The democratically elected Hamas regime that runs the Gaza Strip openly calls for the destruction of the Jews. The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank led by President Mahmoud Abbas systemically indoctrinates Palestinians about the "evil Zionist state." Palestinian television, schools and state-controlled media all preach that Israel is inherently "illegitimate" and must be "eliminated." The overwhelming majority of the Palestinians (and Arabs) don't want peace. They want conquest. The notion of two states, in which Jews and Palestinians are living side by side in mutual coexistence, is an illusion. If the Palestinians abandoned their guns, there would be peace. If the Israelis abandoned their guns, there would be genocide. The root cause of the violence in the Middle East has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is a distraction, a convenient excuse consistently used by Arab tyrants to cover up the real disease afflicting the region: radical Islam. From its inception, Islamic civilization has been at war with its neighbors. The Muslim faith has spread throughout centuries by the sword and violent jihad. It is why Christians and Jews were slaughtered and expelled from Arab lands during the Middle Ages. It is why the Ottoman Turks invaded and conquered Spain, Portugal, the Balkans and parts of France and Italy, even reaching the gates of Vienna. It is why the Saudis today continue to spend billions of dollars funding extremist madrassa all over the world. It is why Islamofascists, such as the Taliban and al Qaeda, seek a global caliphate based on Shariah law. It is why Iran's revolutionary Shiite mullahs are marching toward a nuclear bomb. From its inception, political Islam has been at war with the West — first, with Christendom, and now with its modern secular variant, liberal democracy. There is no escape for either Israel or America. Islamists despise the Jewish state because it is the West's strategic bulwark in the Middle East — a democratic outpost in a region marked by economic backwardness, authoritarianism and religious fanaticism. The United States is the bastion of the free world, the last great power of the West. Hence, for Islamic radicals, these two nations must be smashed. It is a fight to the finish — and only one side can emerge victorious. For all of his flaws (and there were many), former President George W. Bush understood this seminal reality. This is why he fought the war against Islamic terrorism. It is also why he was the most pro-Israel leader in U.S. history. He understood one simple truth: Israel's struggle is the West's struggle. Mr. Obama is the anti-Bush. He is virulently anti-Israel, championing appeasement toward radical Islam. The reason lies in Mr. Obama's background and worldview — one that makes him uniquely unqualified to prosecute the war on terror. During his youth, Mr. Obama was raised and educated as a Muslim. His father and stepfather were Muslims. When Mr. Obama attended a Catholic school in Indonesia, he was registered as an Indonesian citizen and "a Muslim." In public school, he was also identified as practicing Islam. Under the name "Barry Soetoro," he was compelled to take daily Islamic religious instruction, recite prayers, study the Koran and learn Arabic. His former classmates and teachers remember him as a devout Muslim. For example, Rony Amir, a childhood pal of young Barry, described Mr. Obama as "previously quite religious in Islam." "We previously often asked him to the prayer room close to the house," Mr. Amir said. "If he was wearing a sarong [waist garment worn for religious or casual occasions] he looked funny." Nor is Mr. Obama's sympathy for Islamic culture limited to his youth. In an interview with the New York Times, Mr. Obama described the Muslim call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset." The Times also noted that Mr. Obama recited, "with a first-class [Arabic] accent," the opening lines of the Muslim call to prayer. Here are the first few lines: Allah is Supreme!
Mr. Obama says he is a practicing Christian. Yet, there can be no denying that his Muslim heritage and Islamic background infuses his thought and actions. Culturally, he is America's first Muslim president. He refuses to admit there is a war against Islamist terrorism. His counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, even denies that jihad is a motive for Muslim extremists. He publicly excoriates Israel for building Jewish apartments in East Jerusalem, but calls for "engagement" and "dialogue" with Iran. He seeks a rapprochement with Syria, downplaying its ties to Tehran and support for Hezbollah. He is prematurely pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq. He has imposed crippling rules of engagement that make victory all but impossible in Afghanistan — for fear of killing civilians and "angering" the Muslim street. He demands Gitmo be closed. He calls for terrorists, like Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to be tried in civilian court. He has ordered that NASA's "foremost" mission be "outreach" to the Islamic world — not space exploration. And he adamantly embraces Palestinian statehood, even at the mortal risk posed to Israel. In short, Mr. Obama seeks to coddle the Islamic world. The result is that Iran is on the verge of acquiring the bomb. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — like all fanatics — is a serious man. He vows to slay the Jews of Israel once and for all. Mr. Obama is not some grand peacemaker. Rather, he is a naive, foolish leftist who — blinded by his ideological and cultural blinkers — is playing right into the blood-soaked hands of America's enemies. Contact Ralph Rubinek at rrubinek@aol.com |
|
FIT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES
Posted by Paul Rotenberg, July 9, 2010. |
|
This was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post. |
|
Two important statements this week shed a light on the nature of the Palestinian conflict with Israel. Both were barely noted by the media. On Saturday the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper reported that Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas gave US mediator George Mitchell a letter detailing a number of concessions that he would make towards Israel in a final peace treaty. These included a willingness to accept permanent Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem's Old City and over the Western Wall. The Al Hayat report received enthusiastic and expansive coverage in the Israeli media and in media outlets throughout the world. What was barely noted was that just hours after the report hit the airwaves, Abbas's chief negotiator Saeb Erekat categorically denied the story. In an interview with Israel Radio, Saeb Erekat said the story was untrue. Abbas has been the recipient of adulatory press coverage in Israel over the past several days. Last week he thrilled the Hebrew-language media when he invited Israeli reporters to a sumptuous feast at his Ramallah headquarters. And then the Al Hayat story came out. Lost in the excitement was Abbas's eulogy for arch terrorist Muhammad Daoud Oudeh who died over the weekend. Oudeh was the mastermind of the PLO's massacre of 11 Israeli athletes during the 1972 Munich Olympics. Abbas himself served the operation's paymaster. As Palestinian Media Watch reported, in a condolence telegram quoted in the Abbas-controlled Al-Hayat al Jadida newspaper, Abbas touted Oudeh as, "a wonderful brother, companion, tough and stubborn, relentless fighter," and described him as "one of the prominent leaders of the Fatah movement." So while the local and international media pounced on the Al Hayat story as proof that the Palestinians are serious about peace, they failed to mention that their hope was based on a story that the Palestinians themselves deny. So too, in their rush to embrace Abbas, they failed to mention his glorification of an unrepentant mass murderer who commanded the terror squad that massacred Israel's Olympic athletes. These statements by Palestinian officials the media routinely characterize as moderates, demonstrate how deeply distorted and largely irrelevant the discourse on the Middle East has become. As the "moderate" Palestinians insist they are uninterested in peaceful coexistence and territorial compromise with Israel, news coverage in Israel and throughout the Western world is dominated by other issues. Specifically, discussion of prospects for peace between Israel and the Palestinians is dominated by an endless discussion of Israel's Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and Jewish neighborhoods in eastern, southern and northern Jerusalem. The most egregious recent example of this distortion was a 5,000 word article in Tuesday's New York Times regarding US charitable contributions to these Jewish communities. Titled, "Tax Exempt Funds Aid Settlements in the West Bank," the report was co-authored by five Times reporters. It was the product of weeks of research. And notably, the Times chose to publish it on its front page above the fold on the very day that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu visited the White House. The Times article is a textbook case of the media's ideologically motivated aggression against Middle East reality. Any way you look at it, it is a premeditated affront to the very notion that the role of a newspaper is the report facts rather manufacture news aimed at shaping perceptions and skewing debate. The article goes to great lengths to discredit the American citizens who make charitable, tax deductible donations to organizations that provide lawful support to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and Jewish neighborhoods in southern, northern and eastern Jerusalem. It paints a sinister picture of such contributions and contributors and accuses them of actively undermining US foreign policy. The contributors, we are told in the opening lines of the report are the Left's bogeyman — Evangelical Christians and religious Jews. They are unacceptable actors in the Middle East because they both believe that Jewish control of Judea and Samaria is a precursor to the coming of the messiah. Reacting to the Times' report, on Wednesday Honest Reporting noted that the article appears to be the product of active collusion between the Times and the radical, anti-Zionist, tax exempt Gush Shalom organization. As Honest Reporting relays, in July 2009, Gush Shalom sent out a communiqué to its supporters calling for the initiation of a campaign that, "includes a combination of legal action and public advocacy aimed at denying federal tax exempt (501c3) status to US charities supporting settlement activity." The Times' article bears all the markings of a political campaign. First, despite the valiant efforts of five Times reporters, the article exposes no illegal activity. At best, its investigation of more than forty organizations that contribute funds to the hated Jewish communities in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria indicated that less than a handful of them are guilty of poor accounting practices. Assuming that Honest Reporting's eminently reasonable conclusion that the Times report is the product of collaboration between the newspaper and radical anti-Zionist groups is accurate, the report is shockingly hypocritical. By publishing it, the Times is engaging in the precise behavior it argues the organizations it investigated should be punished for purportedly engaging in. To wit, in the service of radical, tax-deductible organizations, the Times seeks to undermine US foreign policy. For the past four decades, it has been the foreign policy of the United States to maintain a strategic alliance with Israel. The goal of Times'-aligned groups like Gush Shalom is to undermine that alliance by discrediting and criminalizing those who wish to strengthen and maintain it. The Times' article uses dark language and innuendo to create the impression that there is something treacherous and evil about contributions to Jewish communities and neighborhoods in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. For instance, the article argues, "The donations to the settler movement stand out [from other charitable contributions that promote US foreign policy goals] because of the centrality of the settlement issue in the current talks and the fact that Washington has consistently refused to allow Israel to spend American government aid in the settlements. Tax breaks for the donations remain largely unchallenged, and unexamined by the American government." What the Times fails to acknowledge is that the reason these donations are "largely unchallenged, and unexamined," is because it is the constitutional right of American citizens to contribute to charities that promote policy goals even when those goals — like those of Gush Shalom — are antithetical to US policy as determined by the US government. The Times alleges that these communities are illegal. Its authority for this allegation is none other than Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat. Erekat opined to the paper, "Settlements violate international law." The truth is that Israeli communities beyond the 1949 armistice lines are legal. But even if one were to accept the argument that they are unlawful, one would be accepting an argument based on the language of the 4th Geneva Convention from 1949 which prevents occupying powers from transferring their population to the areas under occupation. There is no possible reading of the convention that would prohibit the voluntary movement of Israelis to Judea, Samaria and post-1967 neighborhoods in Jerusalem. Likewise, there is no possible reading of the convention that would prohibit the provision of financial support to Israelis who voluntarily move to the areas in question. Yet it is precisely this indisputably lawful, voluntary movement of Jews to these areas — which the Times acknowledges is often done against the wishes of Israel's governments — that the Times' article attacks. In short, the Times' contention that there is something legally problematic about these donations is preposterous both as it relates to US law and as it relates to international law. From a journalistic perspective, worse than the Times' decision to engage in precisely the behavior it seeks to criminalize when carried out by its political nemeses on the Christian and Jewish Right, and worse even than the article's false characterization of law, is the article's clear attempt to obfuscate the main problem with land issues in Judea and Samaria. This it does in the interest of manufacturing a false but ideologically sympathetic picture of the situation on the ground. The Times only gets around to alluding to — and obfuscating — the real problem with land issues in the 58th paragraph of the article. The Times reports, "Islamic judicial panels have threatened death to Palestinians who sell property in the occupied territories to Jews." Actually, while this may be true, it is not the problem. The problem is that the second law promulgated by the PA — just weeks after it was established in 1994 — criminalized all Arab land sales to Jews as a capital crime. Since 1994 scores of Arabs have been killed in both judicial and extrajudicial executions for selling land to Jews. This open move to hide the fact that since 1994 the PA has dispatched death squads to murder both Palestinians and Israeli Arabs suspected of selling land to Jews is a shocking miscarriage of journalistic standards. Whereas the Times required five reporters to work for weeks to come up with exactly nothing illegal in the operations of US charitable groups that support Jewish communities the Times wishes to destroy, the Times would have needed to invest no resources whatsoever to discover that the PA kills any Arab who sells land to Jews. The PA has made no effort to hide this policy. It is in the public sphere for anyone willing to look at reality. And that is of course the real issue here. The entire Times' "investigation" of American charitable groups that support Jewish communities and neighborhoods in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem is a blatant attempt by a major newspaper to hide the real issues prolonging the Palestinian conflict with Israel. Those issues — exposed by Abbas's praise for a terrorist mass murderer, Erekat's denial that Abbas has any interest in compromising with Israel, as well as by the PA's policy of killing all Arabs who sell land to Jews — do not serve the Times' purpose of blaming the absence of peace on Israel generally and on the Israeli Right and its supporters in the US in particular. And so it is that 17 years after the start of the so-called peace process between Israel and the PLO, and ten years after the PLO destroyed that process by launching a terror war against Israel, and four and a half years after the Palestinians elected Hamas to lead them, we are still stuck in a distorted, irrelevant discourse about the Middle East. We are stuck in a rut because politically and ideologically motivated media organs operate hand in globe with radical groups seeking to undermine Israel's national sovereignty and end its alliance with the US. Together they manufacture news that bear no relation with reality or the true challenges facing those who seek peace in the Middle East. But obviously for the New York Times, that is what makes it fit to print. Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at pdr@rogers.com |
|
WOW! ABBAS GIVES US THE WALL!
Posted by Michael Freund, July 9, 2010. |
|
How can someone offer you something that is yours eternally? According to media reports, Palestinian Chairman Mahmoud Abbas offered Israel the Western Wall and the Old City of Jerusalem as part of a peace deal. But, as I ask in the column below in the blog section: how can Abbas offer Israel something that we already have? The Palestinian acceptance of Israel's right to Jerusalem, just like their recognition of Israel's existence, must be viewed as a prerequisite, rather than a part of, any diplomatic process. We do not need Mr. Abbas, or anyone else for that matter, to give us something we possess already. And we most certainly don't need to view his reported acknowledgment of reality as constituting a "concession" or a "gesture" which merits a reciprocal response. Placing ourselves at the mercy of Abbas' fickle approval is not a recipe for peace, but a formula for failure. Michael Freund is the founder and chairman of Shavei Israel (www.shavei.org), which assists Anousim in Spain, Portugal and South America to return to the Jewish people. He served as an adviser to former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. |
|
STEPHANOPOULOS LIED RE WHAT OBAMA SAID?; WEST PRAISES
FADLALLAH; ISRAELI HOSPITALS SAVE THOUSANDS FOREIGN ARABS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 9, 2010. |
|
ABC'S STEPHANOPOULOS LIED ABOUT WHAT OBAMA SAID? President Obama said to PM Netanyahu, "And my hope is, is that once direct talks have begun, well before the moratorium has expired, that that will create a climate in which everybody feels a greater investment in success. Not every action by one party or the other is taken as a reason for not engaging in talks." What Obama said means that the Palestinian Authority should negotiate or continue negotiating when Israel's freeze ends. On ABC "Good Morning America" 7/7/10 interview with Netanyahu, ABC's George Stephanopoulos misrepresented what Obama said: "MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: How about extending the settlement freeze? The president said yesterday he hopes that there will be enough progress in the peace talks for the freeze to be extended past September." No, he did not. Obama's statement makes it more difficult for those who want Israel to continue the freeze on the basis that otherwise the P.A. would not (IMRA, 7/8/10). Link to video Considering that the President's statement was clear and general, and Stephanopoulos' statement was specific, his misstatement would seem deliberate. Speaking of lying, an anti-Zionist reader who expresses a racist view of Zionism and Judaism seems too busy making accusations to care that they are false. He: (1) Treats "Semite" as racial, but it is not; (2) Suggests that the Holy Land was promised to Semites, a conglomeration of nationalities that makes such a suggestion meaningless and is not in any religious doctrine; (3) Asserts that Zionists who are not religious are not Jews, but if their mothers are, and, with complications, they have not converted out of Judaism, or if they have converted into Judaism, they are Jews; (4) Arabs are Semites, so he says they are entitled to the country, and Jews who oppose them are antisemitic. Having no interest in truth, he won't care about this next correction, but the rest of you may. The word, "anti-Semitism," was coined by an Austrian Jew-hater to identify his bigotry. He referred only to Jews, not the linguistic group, Semites. The Arabs recently, as part of their blurring clear definitions, claim that how can their jihad, which seeks to wipe out Jews, be antisemitic, when they, themselves are Semites. But their doctrine is one of hatred of Jews. Their ruse is to ignore the concept but redefine the word. Israel somewhat opposes jihad, but not with religious or ethnic hatred. The primary language of Israel is Hebrew. Hebrew is a Semitic language. Therefore, the Jewish people there are Semites. I can tell you an anti-Zionist, mud-slinger's reaction to this series of corrections, if any: repeat the original false statement, as if no correction were issued.
MORE WESTERN PRAISE FOR DECEASED LEBANESE CLERIC Now British Ambassador to Lebanon Frances Guy singa high praises for the recently deceased Lebanese jihadist, Fadlallah. Ambassador Guy called Fadlallah "a true man of religion," said his death left Lebanon "a lesser place," and the world "needs more men like him." She said that of all the people she had met, he most impressed her. Yes, he condemned "honor killing" and the like, but his last fatwa endorsed suicide bombing. He inspired Hizbullah terrorism. Among the attacks he authorized was the bombing of a U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, which slew about 300 people. Guy's blog entry was deleted. No comment from Britain's Foreign Ministry (Arutz-7, 7/9/10). (For the prior praise of Fadlallah, click here. ) The world needs less "honor killing" but not more suicide bombing. Westerners think that if someone calls an ideology a religion, it must be benign. That is ignorance. Ambassadors to countries whose leaders espouse that violent ideology should not be ignorant about it. But something is psychologically amiss, worse than ignorance, in Western elites who praise murderous enemies seeking to destroy them. Britain has had its share of bombing. Guy's reaction is the same kind of appeasement that enabled Hitler almost to wipe out her country. Some feminists prefer radicalism to feminism, such that they ignore honor killings in order to side with Muslims against Jews. Perhaps other feminists are taken with a Muslim cleric who protects people's rights as women, even though those same clerics inspire the murders of hundreds and thousands of innocent people, including women.
ISRAELI ACADEMICS CALL FOR BOYCOTT OF ACADEMIA BUT KEEP OWN JOBS Favoring the Arab side, some Israeli academics call for a boycott of higher education in their own country and even in their own institutions. Education Minister Gideon Saar is moving to take action against them. Five hundred academics and two former Education Ministers signed a petition opposing Min. Saar, in the name of academic freedom. A widespread boycott might endanger Israeli higher education. On the other hand, if the academics resigned and then, as private citizens, called for boycotts, nobody would interfere (Arutz-7, 7/9/10). They call for boycott but keep their salaries. Principled people with such pimpled principles? These alienated academics do not have a quarrel with the universities. Therefore, their call for a boycott is not an academic matter, but part of the economic and political movement to bring down Israel. Universities are vital to the country's economy and defense. The Education Minister makes sense, but the alienated academics make treason, since the country is in a state of war and is struggling for survival. Most of the anti-Zionist academics are in the social studies departments. Many of them, as attested to by Prof. Steven Plaut, who set up a campus watch organization in Israel, lack academic credentials and peer-reviewed scholarship. Their "qualification" seems to be anti-Zionism. Leftists hire leftists — they do not believe in academic freedom. They use their classrooms to indoctrinate and to squelch students' academic freedom. If those subversives were dismissed, and qualified scholars were hired, Israeli higher education would improve greatly.
ISRAELI HOSPITALS SAVE HUNDREDS OF FOREIGN ARABS A MONTH Ichilov hospital in Tel Aviv typifies how Israeli hospitals treat foreigners, including Arabs. Each month, Ichilov treats up to 100 Gaza patients suffering from serious illness. They often are sent by Hamas. Ichilov also treats many citizens of foreign Arabs countries, even without diplomatic relations. The hospital treats them all with dedication. It provides their accompanying relatives free food and a place to stay. These facts came out as Deputy Minister Ayoub Kara reviewed hospital care there with Director Gabi Barabash. Min. Kara, himself a Druse, observed that Ichilov treats its patients equally. "The time has come for Hamas to give us something small in return," he said, "to release a single son of ours, who has been held for four years with no medical care, in exchange for the hundreds of people whose lives Israel saves every month." "I call on those Arab countries that are aware of how much we give them when it comes to medicine to call for Gilad Shalit's release as well." Shalit's release would "make the peace talks much more meaningful," he added (Maayana Miskin, Arutz-7, 7/9/10). The real story about Israel and Arab lives is that while anti-Zionists rave, Zionists save. This is the kind of story that rarely gets out. Should Israel pay for enemy patients? Should Israel be humanitarian for its own sake in helping an enemy organized to murder as many Israelis as it can, and get condemned by enemies posing as humanitarian? There is something of the sucker in that. Sometimes an Arab who is well treated sees that Israelis are not the bogeymen depicted. On the other hand, there was the Arab patient saved by a heart transplant from a Jew, but who continued hating Jews.
'PEACEMAKER' ABBAS CALLS FOR WAR Abbas used to explain to his people that they aren't ready for war, so they should restrain their terrorism and negotiate. He said if the negotiations do not satisfy them, then they would go to war. Now he puts it that the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) cannot by itself defeat Israel, but if the Arab world made war on Israel, the P.A. would join it. Abbas also told the Arab League that during the Oslo wars (started by Arafat, who hoped to drag in the Arab world), Israel "completely destroyed" Arab cities. Abbas, who repeated those statements to his ambassador to Jordan, once was elected, but then repeatedly extended his term (Arutz-7, 7/9/10 from P.A. daily Al-Hayat al-Jadida as translated by Palestinian Media Watch). Arafat's staff used to claim not that several Arab cities were destroyed, but that Jenin was. Gradually they had to lower their estimates many-fold. Turns out, only the small combat area within a tiny portion of Jenin was destroyed. Much of the destruction was due to booby-trapping by the PLO. Israel had given civilians time to evacuate. Abbas is lying to his League. Do they know it, or do they believe anything bad about their enemy? How do they feel about being lied to? The Jewish nationalist Right, that all along has been exposing Abbas as not a peace lover, is vindicated by Abbas' own statements. Now what does Obama have to say about the U.S. training a P.A. fighting force? He no longer can say its purpose is to fight terrorism. It serves terrorism and undoubtedly would be used in the aggression that Abbas invited. Now will those who oppose U.S. subsidy of Israel, oppose U.S. subsidy of the armed forces of the P.A., Egypt, and Lebanon? Will President Obama still expect peace from negotiations by the P.A.? If so, why?
P.A. PARAMILITARY IMPRESSES VISITING U.S. SENATORS U.S. Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman visited Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). The P.A. paramilitary impressed the visitors as reliable. They now think that paramilitary poses not threat to Israel and may even provide security for Israel. The news brief cited some of the many cases of P.A. troops turning against Israeli troops, some on joint patrols. The implication is that it would happen again (Arutz-7, 7/9/10). Amazing what a visit can achieve! Do those Senators know about Abbas' call for war and his glorifying of terrorism? American politicians seem to be more and more unrealistic.
A REACTION TO ABBAS' CALL FOR WAR In reaction to Abbas' call for a general Arab war on Israel, the Zionist Organization of America calls for a complete end of U.S. and Israeli financial aid and other ties to the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). Abbas has demonstrated fraud in approaching the peace process. He will use diplomacy and war for Palestinian Arab Muslim supremacy. He admitted he is negotiating now only for lack of strength to wage war. [But the U.S. demands that Israel make concessions to strengthen Abbas.] Abbas' earlier talk about peace was duplicitous. He must expect that he can call for war without being held to account by his Western supporters, including governments. This does not say much about them. "Further ties and aid should be conditional upon the PA instituting sweeping, genuine reform to Palestinian aims and society — most importantly, true acceptance of Israel; the arresting of terrorists and dismantling of their networks; and an end to the incitement to hatred and murder within the PA that feeds war and bloodshed." Abbas' record is no more encouraging:
In the prior article, three U.S. Senators said they thought the P.A. military good for Israel. What say they now?
HOT AND COLD GREETINGS FOR NETANYAU IN NEW YORK Hundreds of supporters rallied in the heat wave, to greet PM Netanyahu at the Council on Foreign Relations, Park Ave., New York City, on Thursday. Netanyahu had come to address the Council on Israel's global role. One welcomer was Avi Posnick, head of StandWithUs in New York. He said, Israel is ready for peace, but the terrorists, financed by Iran, are ready for war. NY State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, one of the speakers, wondered whether Obama's new-found amity with Netanyahu and Israel is due to this being an election year. He asked, "...who is the real Obama?" Across the street, anti-Zionists gave Netanyahu a colder reception. Among them were 40 members of the Chasidic Neturei Karta [once subsidized by Arafat], The New York Campaign for the Boycott of Israel, American Jews for a Just Peace, Adalah — NY (subsidized by The New Israel Fund), Jews Say No!, and the WESPAC Foundation. They held Palestinian Arab flags and chanted, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." Some added, "The Palestinian people in Gaza are living in squalor; without food, medicine and basic supplies because of Israel's blockade." They were rebutted by Malcolm Hoenlein, CEO of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, "There is no shortage of food and medicine in Gaza. Every week Israel allows tens of thousands of pounds of food and other essential staple items into Gaza." Referring to Hamas as the cause of the blockade, his message is, no bombardment, no embargo. Mr. Hoenlein remarked that the protesters claim to be humanitarian, but support organizations for extermination (Arutz-7, 7/9/10). "From the river to the sea" would include Israel. Does New Israel Fund, which asks Jews for donations in behalf of improving Israel, but subsidizes Adalah, endorse plans to eradicate it? How can the other groups there stand with groups that do?
NEW YORK TIMES VIEW OF 'NOBLE AND UGLY' ISRAELIS Nicholas D. Kristof visited Arabs and their Jewish supporters in Judea-Samaria, and believed their stories. Nationalist Jews refused his request for interviews. Mr. Kristof's lead paragraph sets the tone: "Israel goes out of its way to display its ugliest side to the world by tearing down Palestinian homes or allowing rapacious settlers to steal Palestinian land." Definitive facts or factual definitions? His "noble" Israelis are the "courageous and effective voices on behalf of oppressed Palestinians," such as Arik Ascherman, executive director of Rabbis for Human Rights. That organization's volunteers "sometimes serve as human shields to protect Palestinians — even if that means getting arrested or beaten." Kristof "...visited a rural area in the northern W. Bank where Jewish settlers have taken over land that Palestinian farmers say is theirs." Check land registration? "If we try to enter our land, settlers will be waiting, and we will be beaten," an Arab tells him. "Last year, he said, he was hospitalized with a broken rib, after settlers attacked while he was picking his own olives." He said. American children send money so that the rabbis can replant an olive tree for an Arab whose grove was uprooted by Jews. Arab youths stoned the car of the head of Rabbis for Human Rights. [What! Those nice Arabs who are always the victims of Jews, initiated violence?] Tarring with a broad brush, Kristof writes, "The most lucid unraveling of Israel's founding mythology comes from Israeli historians." The journalist concludes that the most religious Middle Easterners may be the most hateful. "By challenging religious extremism, Rabbis for Human Rights redeems not only Israeli values, but also Jewish ones." Examples of hatred by religious Jews? (NY Times, 7/8/10, A25.) Kristof admits hating them. Sure nationalist Jews refused his request for interviews. Many have found themselves misquoted or exaggerated to look bad. I have known such victims. Kristof could have checked with their representatives and even with the government, to get their side. What is ugly and rapacious is stealing land to build houses, as thousands of Arabs do in Israel and in the territories. Not that Kristof is aware or will acknowledge, as shown by his omitting the reasons for demolition. I have been reporting for years Jews' protests, usually non-violent, and Arabs' protests, usually violent. Police tend to arrest the Jews, sometimes with brutality, but rarely arrest Arabs, except, more recently, when they throw rocks at troops guarding the security barrier. If the situation were as Kristof reports, then his Jerusalem Bureau would have reported it with gusto. False Arab land claims go back to early Mandate days. Although the British Mandatory authorities sympathized with the Arabs and were notoriously antisemitic, they ruled against about 97% of the many Arab land claims. That is how fraudulent they were. Arabs would sell Jews land, and then other Arabs would claim to be the owners of it. When Zionists paid tenants, people who never worked there came and applied for payments as tenants. Again in our time, Arabs present forged records of ownership, claim they did not sell a house whose sale was videotaped, refuse to stop squatting, and commit violence against Jews moving in. Arabs try to drive Jews off the land, rustling their livestock and stealing their equipment. I have reported many cases of Arabs attacking Jewish drivers, hitchhikers, women, hikers, students, urbanites, and farmers, but not a word of that from Kristof. The Arabs have a culture of violence, Judaism does not. Kristof implies that the government sides with the Jews. I have reported many hardships that the government imposes on Jews in the Territories. Special regulations were set up to harass Jews there. Prosecutors bother them for petty things, but rarely indict Arabs who attack Jewish farmers. I have reported Arabs and their leftist supporters digging up Jews' crops and claiming that their own, pruned trees were destroyed by "settlers" and that they should be compensated for it. Apparently Kristof is not aware of the Arab practice of moving livestock onto Jewish ranches or planting crops on Jews' fields, and then, in accordance with ancient mores, claiming the land as theirs. Referring to the "new historians" as "historians" is a stretch. I have reported their ignoring Arab sources that make damaging admissions, their quoting out of context, their misrepresenting Zionism, their general dishonesty. Of the four original new historians, two were Communists — can't rely on them. These new historians are driven by ideology not by fact-finding. And it is not really history that they write about, they write about events I remember and see they falsify. In recent months, some young Jews may be retaliating against Arabs whom they do not know to have been the ones to harm them. That is not right. But when Jews discharge pistols even in the air, to warn off attackers, police arrest the Jews, not the attackers. Arabs accuse those Jews of shooting them, but try not to let their bodies be checked for the non-existent wounds. Police take the Arabs' word for it and arrest Jews. In Israel, Jews are not supposed to defend themselves.
UNIFIL FAILURE IN LEBANON: UPDATE UNIFIL's failure to find illegal arms and fortifications in scores of Hamas-controlled villages in southern Lebanon is more than incompetence. Israel has advised UNIFIL where to look. UNIFIL refuses to look there. Instead, it claims not to now of illegal arms and it condemns the Israeli over-flights that gather the intelligence Israel was putting at UNIFIL's disposal. This means that UNIFIL does not want its job. That means that third parties cannot be relied upon to keep the peace. Although reliance upon third parties to do so is a mainstay of diplomacy for a pact with Israel and the Palestinian Authority, foreign governments and Israeli leftists do not rebuke UNIFIL for failing to enforce the truce. That inaction demonstrates insincerity. Instead of durable peace, those who call upon third party monitoring are risking people's lives and tempting war (IMRA, 7/8/10).
OBAMA DENIES ANTI-ISRAEL SENTIMENT AND POLICY A TV Interviewer asked President Obama why he supposes that Israelis feel he is unsympathetic toward them. Obama attributed that in part to his middle name, Hussein, "and that creates suspicion," and part to his trying to befriend the Muslim world. He added, "Ironically, I've got a chief of staff named Rahm Israel Emanuel. My top political adviser is somebody who is a descendant of Holocaust survivors. My closeness to the Jewish-American community was probably what propelled me to the U.S. Senate." (Kyle Chrichton, Isabel Kershner, NY Times, 7/9/10, A9). Ever evasive, isn't Obama! All the nasty things he said about Israel, puffing up a tempest in a teapot, making one-sided demands of Israel, demanding that Israel take security risks that always lead to terrorism against Israelis — those he ignores. He didn't just "reach out" to Muslims. He maligned the U.S., to them. He lied to them about the formation of the State of Israel. He equated Israel to Jim Crow, quite unfairly. His antipathy is obvious. His answer resembles that of the antisemite who denies bias by claiming that some of his best friends are Jews. Nowadays, some of these Jews can be alienated from their people, just as were Secretary of State "Baker's Jews." Mr. Emanuel is a radical, who puts ideology before ethnic and religious solidarity. Being a descendant of Holocaust survivors is no criterion — Henry Kissinger was a survivor, but insisted on being sworn in on a Christian Bible. So Obama's reply that he can't be anti-Israel because he likes individual Jews is a poor one. Antisemites assume that all Jews are devoted to Israel, despite the example of far leftist Jews who are allied with Islamists against Israel. One of my readers infers that Emanuel cannot be anti-Israel because he father was a Jewish nationalist. Unlike father, unlike son! Obama got an earlier start than he lets on. Obama was apprised for his potential for college and/or graduate school, and sponsored by radicals. That should have been investigated, at least during the Presidential primary. Why did radicals sponsor him? To whom does he give his allegiance, now? Why did Obama want to enter the Senate, where, as in the Illinois legislature, he usually voted not "yes" and not "no" but just "present." What is the point. Why was he keeping a low profile? A notable exception during his term in the U.S. Senate was an issue on which he did vote and wielded significant influence among his fellows. The Wall St. Journal explained that he had much to do with preventing limits on how much investment houses could leverage their funds. Had the vote gone the other way, the financial crisis that he blames on President Bush would have been considerably milder. In defense of Obama Mideast policy, people say he is keeping up military cooperation with Israel. But he is not letting Israel improve purchased U.S. weapons and not letting it raid Iran. Military cooperation can be temporary. He is working to get Israel permanent borders that make it non-viable. He insists that Israel reduce its security measures against terrorism. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
STONE GUTS EXPOSED
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, July 8, 2010. |
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at
freify@netvision.net.il and visit
|
|
BETWEEN TEHERAN AND GAZA
Posted by Steve Kramer, July 8, 2010. |
|
I recently attended an excellent talk at Tel Aviv University sponsored by the university's English-speaking Friends organization. The topic was: "Between Teheran and Gaza — Security Challenges and Diplomatic Responses." Our renowned speaker was Professor Itamar Rabinovitch, eminent author, history professor, and former president of Tel Aviv University. Rabinovitch began by explaining that there has been no definitive military victory accomplished by Israel since Lebanon in 1982, if that. He cited the example of President George W. Bush in regard to Iraq, declaring "Mission accomplished!" from an aircraft carrier deck, following the lightning downfall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Though overwhelming force had been utilized, Bush vastly underestimated the huge task of making Iraq into a stable, non-bellicose nation. Even in '82 when Israel established a security zone in southern Lebanon, Israel's goal wasn't accomplished; Israel abandoned its security zone in the summer of 2000. In its two most recent wars, against Hizbullah and Hamas, Israel achieved some deterrence, but no clearcut victory. Rabinovitch emphasized that a huge price was paid for the Cast Lead "victory" in Gaza, 2008: the delegitimization of Israel is now in high gear and Israel is subjected to unprecedented, hateful scrutiny. Therefore, concludes Rabinovitch, there is no singular military solution for Israel's predicament. Scores of thousands of rockets are aimed at Israel, by Hamas, Hizbullah, and the Syrians, ruling out conventional warfare tactics, according to Rabinowitz. The reason: Israel's anti-missile defenses are inadequate to deal with this missile threat. Missiles will fall on Tel Aviv, no matter what. The problem of suicide bombers has been replaced by the dominant missile threat. If Israel evacuates Jews from the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) as part of peace negotiations, can we be assured terrorist groups won't take over, which they did in Lebanon and Gaza? Israel's adversaries have the advantage of using terrorist tactics, Rabinovitch notes, which Israel can't defeat in a clear cut victory. There is a militant resistance movement against Israel and America throughout the world, which sees a Western conspiracy, led by Israel, as the reason for Arab failure. (Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country, has prospered, as have other non-Arab Muslim countries. All are far from the Middle East.) Egypt and Jordan capitulated to Israel by signing peace treaties, yet they still are left behind economically. Because the Muslim "authority", the Waqf, forbids recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, both Egypt and Jordan have faced Muslim ridicule and have paid a price for their recognition of Israel. No other Arab countries are anxious to follow their example. Conventional warfare is no longer Israel's biggest challenge. Though Israel is nearly encircled by hostile entities (Gaza, Lebanon, Syria), Israel's first priority is to deal with a nuclear ready Iran. That fact, including the likelihood of additional nuclear nations in the Middle East, is a game changer. Iran, a non-Arab country, is Israel's most formidable enemy. A military dictatorship, Iran is both very sophisticated and fanatical, a lethal combination. Turkey's turn toward Islamic fundamentalism is also very threatening, especially since it has been a huge client of Israel's military industries. Turkey's military establishment and its pro-Western secular contingent wish to join the EU, but that won't happen, according to Rabinovitch. The European establishment doesn't want 80 million more Muslims "in" Europe. Nor does the current Turkish government want to turn towards the West. Its ambition aims at hegemony in the Middle East. The Obama administration may think it is being a friend of Israel, but it lacks the warmth and closeness which Israel had with the two previous administrations. The clash of civilizations paradigm is opposed by Obama's policy of engagement. His administration aims to resolve the Israeli conflict with both the Palestinians and the Syrians. Rabinovitch notes that America went Left in its last election cycle, while Israel went Right with its leadership. The differing strategies of the two governments have caused much damage to their relationship. Intimacy between Obama and Netanyahu is nonexistent, at least for now. [Watch this video for a politically incorrect view of Obama]
America's veto power in the UN Security Council stymies our enemies, but lately America has equivocated in its support for Israel. Israel's strategy of nuclear ambiguity is under attack and the Obama administration is not helping, allowing the issue of Israel's purported nuclear arsenal to be tied to Iran's drive to develop nuclear weapons during the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty deliberations. A compromise policy regarding Israel's nuclear arsenal, which may include the destruction of Israel's nuclear establishment at Dimona, would be devastating for Israel. Washington can't deal with all the challenges it faces, so it picks and chooses which to tackle. Rabinovitch thinks that a coalition change in Israel could affect the peace talks, which are concerned exclusively with the Palestinians, by including the currently unhappy Syria. But the Obama administration has problems with Syria, including their attempts to go nuclear and their ties with belligerent North Korea. Obama showed his ambivalence towards Syria by his renewal of Syrian sanctions while sending a new ambassador there. Rabinovitch said that a military solution to Israel's problems is not "attractive". Only a "miserable victory" would result. Nevertheless, Abu Mazen, who leads the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, doesn't control Gaza and his power is questionable even in the West Bank. Therefore, an "end of conflict" resolution to the Israelis-Palestinian impasse is doubtful. In his conclusion, Rabinovitch expressed the unhappy thought that America doesn't understand the Middle Eastern bazaar mentality of haggling. It fails to demand reciprocity from the Arabs, which Netanyahu insists on. Thus the US gets nothing in return for its gestures towards the Arabs and Israel also gets nothing for the "confidence building measures" that America demands it proffer to the Arabs. Lebanon has been taken over by Hizbullah and Gaza by Hamas, while the Obama administration hasn't learned the necessary lessons. Rabinovitch pointed out that Israel isn't Ireland and the tactics of Obama's negotiator, George Mitchell, aren't working. Hopefully this will change. Professor Rabinovitch's talk was very well received. He believes that Israel needs to build on its economic success and improve its governance, which everyone can agree with. While I remain unconvinced that there is no military solution (where would we be now if that had been America's attitude in 1942?), I enjoyed hearing an insightful commentary from one of Israel's most articulate spokesmen. Steve Kramer lives in Alfe Menashe. He has written a weekly opinion column for the Jewish Times of southern New Jersey (www.jewishtimes-sj.com) for the last ten years. He writes, "They're about history, politics, touring, or whatever excites me." He is author of "Encountering Israel — Geography, History, Culture." |
|
GOD'S GIFT TO MANKIND
Posted by Professor Paul Eidelberg, July 8, 2010. |
|
Abraham, the father of the Jewish people, the founder of ethical monotheism, discovered the only solid and rational foundation of the idea of the human community or the moral unity of mankind. Rabbi Isaac Breuer, who studied philosophy, history, and German philology at the universities of Marburg and Berlin, and who received a doctorate in law at the University of Salzburg, writes: The idea of the human community is one of the most beautiful pearls in the treasure of Jewish doctrine; it is a basic truth of Judaism; it is that Jewish idea which first set out on its triumphal procession from the Jewish camp into the whole world; it is the first message of salvation which Israel brought to a society of states which knew only force and the misuse of power. "God created man in His image. In the likeness of God He created him" [Genesis 1:27]. Here we have the lapidary sentence from Holy Writ which proclims through all ages the inalienable, godlike nobility of man as such. Breuer emphasizes that although the idea of the human community is a Jewish concept, it is obviously not the sole concept or even the basis of Judaism.... The basis of Judaism is not the universalism it bestowed on mankind, but particularism. If Jewish nationhood means anything it means a distinctive way of life, namely that illuminated by the laws and teachings of the Torah. For example, of the many laws that distinguish Jews from non-Jews, suffice to mention those pertaining to the Sabbath, the dietary laws, and those governing marriage and family purity. These laws preserved the identity of the Jewish people down through the ages. They not only distinguished the Jewish nation from all other nations, but spared them from the fate of nations whose existence depended on having a land of their own. Some nations have been conquered and eradicated. Others have been amalgamated with their conquerors. Still other nations have undergone evolutions and revolutions that fundamentally altered their character. Only the Jews have preserved their 3,300 year-old national identity. This they could do because, in whichever country they lived, regardless of its beliefs and customs, they adhered to the laws of their Torah, such as those just mentioned. It should be borne in mind that God created a world not only for diverse individuals but for nations with distinct ways of life. However, for these ways of life to be mutually reinforcing and not mutually obstructive, they require the rational constraints of the Seven Noahide Laws of Universal Morality. Rooted in ethical monotheism, these laws prohibit blasphemy, murder, stealing, immorality, and cruelty to animals, and the establishment of courts of justice to try violations of these prohibitions.... The seven universal laws of morality may rightly be called a "genial orthodoxy." This genial orthodoxy transcends the social and economic distinctions among men: It holds all men equal before the law. It places constraints on governors and governed alike and habituates men to the rule of law. It subordinates to the rule of law any ethnic differences that may exist among the groups composing a society. It moderates their demands and facilitates coordination of their diverse interests and talents. In short, this Hebraic orthodoxy conduces to social harmony and prosperity. The Noahide Laws can be elaborated in various ways and are therefore applicable to the variety of nations comprising mankind. Israel's world-historical function, therefore, is to provide mankind the example of a nation that synthesizes particularism and universalism, which it can only do as a nation consecrated to God. By affirming a plurality of nations, and by qualifying this particularism with laws of universal morality, Israel avoids the political, cultural, and religious imperialism of Islam, and which once animated Christianity. At the same time, Israel avoids the moral decay evident among democracies that have separated morality from public law. Despite its moral decay, contemporary democracy is commonly regarded as the touchstone of what is good and bad. Democracy thus constitutes the idolatry of the modern era. Mankind desperately needs Israel — of course, an Israel dedicated to God. Only a nation dedicated to God can inspire and elevate mankind. Leo Jung eloquently writes: Had Judaism been entrusted to all nations, it would have lost color and intensity. As everybody's concern it would have remained nobody's concern.... Ideals are better entrusted to minorities as their differentiating asset, because of which they live.... Judaism, given at once to the shapeless multitudes of the world, would have become a meaningless phrase ... Hence it was bestowed upon one nation as its heirloom, as the single reason for its existence, as the single argument of its national life, as the aim and end of its struggles and labors. The Jewish people thus received a charge that was to inspire its life, but the benefit of which was to accrue to all the world. At the beginning of Jewish history, Abraham, the first Jew, received the universal call, 'And thou shalt be a blessing to all the nations of the world.' For the consummation of this ideal, Israel is to walk apart. It will not be counted among the nations... Guided exclusively by the will of God, living by His commandments and dying if need be for the sanctification of His name, Israel is to present the example of a whole nation elevated, ennobled, illumined by the life in God and encouraging thereby a universal imitatio Dei. Israel — the Jewish People — is God's gift to mankind. Professor Paul Eidelberg is an Internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. Contact him at list-owner@foundation1.org |
|
FROM ISRAEL: THIS, OR THAT?
Posted by Arlene Kushner, July 8, 2010. |
|
So, what is the difference between agreeing secretly to an extension of the construction freeze, but — for domestic political reasons — not declaring it... And not formally extending the freeze but agreeing secretly that if there is significant progress on the "talks" before the end of the freeze then there will be no announcement of resumed construction that would threaten the process or upset the US? There is a difference, buried in this somewhere. But it's a fine line, and in part a matter of semantics. The difference lies in the fact that the first is formal, even if secret. Things would be frozen. The second, which would depend upon a certain state of affairs to be put in place, is informal, de facto, and could be reversed at any time. ~~~~~~~~~~ Yediot Achronot is saying that the second set of circumstances is what we can expect: That Netanyahu has agreed not to publicly announce a resumption of building at the end of the freeze. That is, if direct talks are already under way or there has been such progress in the "proximity talks" that direct talks are expected to begin very soon. This is how Yediot interprets the statement made by Obama, when asked about an extension of the freeze, that he hopes that face-to-face will begin before the freeze expires. He hopes this, presumably, because it would preclude an announcement of renewed building. The major question to be asked, of course, is what it means to not "announce publicly" so as to not "sabotage the talks" (i.e., give the PA a reason to walk away)? Does "not announcing" mean not building? Or would it be understood that some quiet building would take place? If, that is, "quiet" is possible with Peace Now watching every nail that is hammered and running to let the press know about it. And, if the direct talks have not yet begun, how "serious" do the proximity talks have to be — what is it they will have had to achieve — for this agreement to go into effect? I can see potential for serious disagreement on this, with Obama declaring any one of a number of statements to be "progress." ~~~~~~~~~~ None of this goes down very well. The whole notion of face-to-face talks that might set (first, if the PA has its way) the future borders of a Palestinian state generates some severe indigestion. And this is so, even as I remain convinced that it is not really going to happen — that there will not be a resolution of issues that will lead to a "two-state solution." As I have written multiple times, Abbas is not going to sign off on anything — he cannot. And I believe that Netanyahu is proceeding firm in the conviction that Abbas will stall. He is marking time. And yet... To give the whole procedure credence. To set precedents with regard to borders to a Palestinian state. To give the PA more latitude in terms of managing security. Not a happy prospect. ~~~~~~~~~~ At any rate, right now, in spite of a renewed eagerness on the part of Obama to see face-to-face start almost immediately, Abbas is still saying that there's nothing doing because we won't agree upfront to what those borders would be. He may, very deliberately, kill the whole thing before it proceeds further — counting on that UN resolution instead. And there is, as well, the response of our right wing that Netanyahu will have to contend with once he's back home. This is why the Yediot version of matters has a certain ring of truth. Netanyahu may well have told Obama that there has to be another way — that his coalition might not stand in the face of an announcement of a freeze extension, and that he would be considerably weakened politically. This way he can say,"What? Me agree to a freeze extension? No way." Would the right wing sit still for an understanding that resumption of building will not be announced? Depends on what it means and how it is spun, I imagine. But right now the right wing is gearing up for major construction at the end of September. ~~~~~~~~~~ A great deal has been made in the media of the fact that Netanyahu, in his Washington meetings, managed to successfully convey to US leaders a major Israeli concern. To wit: Times are not what they were in 1993, when Oslo was negotiated. Previous Israeli withdrawals have led to takeover of territory by terrorist groups, so that our security has been reduced and our population threatened. Both south Lebanon and Gaza have become bases for rocket launchings and stockpiling of weapons. All of this has caused a shift in Israeli perspective: We ask why we should surrender more land. What further exacerbates the situation is deep concern about the fact that the US intends to leave Iraq soon. This greatly increases the possibility of Iranian forces making their way through Iraq, and then Jordan, to our eastern border (which would mean going through a vulnerable and possibly cooperative Palestinian state if it were established to our east). We need to have a presence in the Jordan Valley for defensive purposes. Thus, we cannot negotiate as we once did, we need guarantees with regard to security. And we are less willing to simply trust. We've learned that we cannot depend on the international community to protect us (see how UNIFIL failed to do so). All absolutely true. It seems to me that what's going on here is that Netanyahu is giving the American government, in the most rational of terms (Jackson Diehl, called it a "pragmatic and non-ideological position"), a heads up regarding the fact that we will be tough in negotiations and will not settle easily. That we CANNOT settle easily and, in fairness, should not be expected to. ~~~~~~~~~~ What I ponder — given the fact that I'm reading that the Americans, including Obama, "got it" — is how we might look for the Americans to adjust their expectations or recalibrate their demands in light of this. Demands will remain demands, I think. They care not a fig about what's secure for us. But this approach might have an effect on their expectations. A modicum of real politic may have been introduced, so that they understand that we can be pushed just so far and that certain factors must be in place. Maybe. ~~~~~~~~~~ In the meantime, it's business as usual, even though incitement is rampant in the PA and the issue of Hamas is not resolved. ~~~~~~~~~~ For the latest evidence that Abbas is not a "partner for peace" see this from Palestinian Media Watch: The PA daily Al-Hayat al-Jadida reported on July 6, that when Abbas was in Jordan recently, he made this statement to journalists while at the home of the Palestinian ambassador to Jordan: "...We are unable to confront Israel militarily, and this point was discussed at the Arab League Summit in March in Sirt [Libya]. There I turned to the Arab States and I said: 'If you want war, and if all of you will fight Israel, we are in favor. But the Palestinians will not fight alone because they don't have the ability to do it.' He [Abbas] said: 'The West Bank was completely destroyed and we will not agree that it will be destroyed again,' in addition to 'the inability to confront Israel militarily.'" ~~~~~~~~~~ I just wrote about how a "hint" from Obama is worthless because he reverses himself at the drop of a hat. And now he has provided another example of just that. When with Obama, Netanyahu publicly invited him to Israel, and the president responded that he was looking forward to the visit. Already, since then, his office has announced that there are no plans for the president to visit Israel this year. In this instance, we have to be thankful that he is reluctant to displease the Palestinian Arabs, or perhaps the larger "Muslim World." If he were to visit here his popularity might go up. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
SARAMAGO
Posted by Teresinka Pereira, July 8, 2010. |
|
JOSE SARAMAGO
"Immortality does not exist"
Contact Teresinka Pereira at tpereira@buckeye-express.com |
|
6 MILLION WHO CANNOT SPEAK
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, July 8, 2010. |
|
Now there are only a few elderly survivors of the Holocaust still alive and most won't/cannot speak out. They know from bitter experience that when government leaders become hostile to Jews, it's dangerous to speak out in public. When some of us speak to elderly survivors and, if they trust you, you might hear something like this: "We know that, as in Germany in the 30s, the hate is growing in the nations as they need someone to blame for their money going bad and for the lack of jobs. We see clearly that President Barack Hussein Obama has a visceral dislike, even hatred, for the Jewish people. We know from experience and instinct that President Barack Hussein Obama has grown very close to the Muslim Arab nations and wishes to please them by acting hostile to Israel. We Jews who have experienced prejudice that resulted in our Genocide throughout the ages have very sensitive antennae. Regrettably, we deliberately ignore incoming messages of hostility because we do not wish to face a reality we know so well." The Six Million dead cannot speak but, if they could, they — no doubt — could tell us how to recognize the symptoms of when another people become bestial, urged on by their leaders who are hoping to re-direct their peoples' anger away from their leaders' failure to solve their nation's problems. It wasn't just Adolph Hitler who used this technique to explain the catastrophic effects of Super-Inflation on Germany's money. Pointing a finger at the Jews, who had nothing to do with the Hyper-Inflation, provided a simple answer to enrage the people and absolve their leaders of blame for incompetent leadership. Jews of that time knew what Hitler was doing but calmed themselves by saying he would soon be gone and everything would go back to normal. I have numerous friends who escaped from different parts of Europe and Russia who migrated to Israel. They had to fight Arab Muslims who swore to finish the Genocide that Hitler and the Europeans had not yet completed. Now in their eighties, most survivors have a deep and accurate impression of what it means to be a Jew in Europe and to be confronted with the howling mobs of Muslim Arabs in Europe, Israel and the rest of the world — wherever Muslims have achieved a critical mass. Such Jews can smell a Pogrom in the air. A Pogrom is an attack against the Jews, usually provoked by the village Priest or the Commissar, on orders from the Czar. Such survivors know when the natives are getting restless and they need to cannibalize someone. Many of us Jews of experience (old enough to recognize the signs) knew that the Obamas were bigots despite the façade of their double-speak. We observed President Obama's first speech from Cairo and knew that another Pharaoh had come on the scene. His visceral hostility was plain even though he used court Jews as his façade much the same as James Baker did with his court Jews. How can you be called an anti-Semite when you have Jew-Boys on your staff who are selling your line? The handful of surviving Holocaust Jews is mostly silent — especially when they see a new Pharaoh and his appointed Czars and Czarinas attacking Israel. We also see the Jew-killing nations of Europe bonding with the Muslim Arabs migrating into their countries who hate Jews from their earliest teaching in their Madrassas. Can you imagine not hating the infidel Jews and Christians when your text books, starting at three years old, picture Jews as demons? Even though Christian Europe and America are also hated by the Muslims of 56 different countries as despised "infidels", nevertheless, in the short term they make common cause with their pagan savage allies because they agree on their Jew-hatred. The present Jews of America, even without personal experience of the Holocaust, have a certain instinctive fear of a man like Obama. 80% of American Jews voted for him and most of them are too embarrassed to admit to their "buyers' remorse" as Obama's true anti-Israel agenda emerges. The Jewish leadership of all the Jewish organizations too quickly drop into silence and will not challenge the hostility of the Obamas. These are the "Sha-Sha" Jews saying be quiet lest "they" (the Muslims with the Nukes, Biologicals and Chemicals) unleash their full anti-Semitic rage (with Obama's tacit approval). That cringing is understandable when you were a Jew living in medieval Europe, Russia or the Middle East, where you knew the monarchy, dictator, Ayatollahs, Church arranged accusations starting with a single Jew in public trials, knowing that the rest of the Jewish community would be similarly accused and persecuted. That cringing in normal fear has been imprinted onto our psyches through 2000 years of living and dying by the anti-Semitism within the leaders and population wherever we lived. Sometimes the Pogroms were stirred up merely to satisfy the anger of the peasantry who were being taxed into poverty by the King or Church. Today that would be likened to unemployment, extraordinary taxes about to be imposed, free choice of your healthcare and insurance surrendered to a government run amok with power. Today the target is Israel and there is a need to silence the Jewish community lest they appeal to Congress and speak out to the American people. One cannot be fooled by a hostile President allowing Israel's Prime Minister into the front door this week instead of the service entrance as in March because Obama needs Jewish votes in the mid-term elections. After November Obama has two years to savage Israel or force her surrender of her Land to the hostile Muslim Arabs before the Presidential elections in 2012. That's assuming Obama will not be impeached for cause when (not IF) radical Islamists planted in America, do not again succeed in another 9/11. Some things never change. Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His
articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the
Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For
Strategic Studies
|
|
SOME CLARIFICATIONS CONCERNING THE CORRECT NOTIONS ABOUT ACADEMIC FREEDOM
Posted by Steven Plaut, July 8, 2010. |
|
There has been so much debate in Israel among academics and in the media these past few weeks about academic freedom that I thought it would prudent and constructive to describe the current politically correct ideas about academic freedom being held and proliferated by the radical academic Left: 1. There is only one correct point of view, that of the radical Left, and — being correct this is what should be taught to students in as many courses and university departments as possible. It is the main function of universities to operate as centers for the proliferation of radical leftist ideology and for indoctrination into progressive thought. 2. Being correct, there is no reason for any courses to provide students with any point of view other than that correct one. Students should express correct ideas if they expect to pass the course. 3. Faculty members who express opinions that some students might find offensive, such as the recent incident at Ben Gurion University involving discussion of homosexual couples raising children, must be prohibited and suppressed. Ditto for those who dare to criticize the New Israel fund; that criticism makes some people feel offended and sad. We must eliminate statements from university discourse that insult any students, which is why we are also determined to label all the students from Im Tirtzu as violent fascists and Nazis. 4. Faculty members who express opinions that some students might find offensive should be fired, but we see nothing wrong with radical anti-Israel faculty members using their classrooms to lecture students on why IDF soldiers resemble Nazis, why terrorist attacks against Israel are morally just, why Israel should be destroyed, why Jews are morally inferior. 5. Academic freedom means that anti-Israel radical faculty have the right to denounce and demonize Israel and call it foul names, but it never means that anyone has the right to criticize radical anti-Israel faculty members or accuse them of disloyalty. 6. Criticism of radical anti-Israel faculty members is McCarthyism and must be suppressed at all costs, at all times. It is also incitement. Where there is any doubt, always insist that all expression of opinion by anyone who disagrees with the Left is incitement. 7. There are some who claim that the real test of commitment to freedom of speech is where one defends the rights of those with whom one disagrees to express their opinions. But we know this is nonsense. That is why we politically-correct defenders of academic freedom oppose freedom of expression for Im Tirtzu students. It is also why we NEVER criticize anti-democratic suppression of the freedom of speech of people from the radical Right. For example, none of us have anything to say about the banning of the Kahanists and the prohibition of exercise of freedom of speech for them. None of us opposed the silencing of the Arutz 7 radio station (but we had no problem with Abie Natan's Peace Radio Ship). It is also why we have never had any problem with the countless indictments of Rightists, including rightist rabbis, for incitement when they exercise THEIR freedom of speech. 8. None of us ever had anything to say about the attempt by the Attorney Generals office to suppress academic freedom of speech when they subjected David Bukay to a political Inquisition. None of us had any problem with Yuli Tamir firing a school teacher for expressing an opinion against indoctrination in the schools into Rabins political ideas. 9. Because there is only one correct view, and it is a radical leftist anti-Israel view, those adhering to this view must be hired and promoted even if they have no academic publication records at all or only very thin ones. It is how we show our solidarity and struggle for peace. 10. Leftist anti-Israel radical faculty members are entitled to unlimited freedom of speech, but donors to Israeli universities, elected politicians, students, and non-leftist faculty members are clearly not. They have no cause to interfere in university matters that do not concern them. It goes without saying that Alan Dershowitz should be prevented from expressing HIS opinions about Israeli academia. 11. Israeli taxpayers are not entitled to any accountability or say in Israeli universities. It is their job just to pony up the funds that keep the radical anti-Israel faculty members in their cushy jobs, where the latter can advocate attacks against, harm to, and boycotts of those very same taxpaying citizens, without interference. Taxpayers who express reluctance to finance academic sedition are anti-democratic, unhygienic, and troglodytes. 12. Other counties regard patently-absurd statements and claims, such as the world being flat, or the Holocaust never happened, or the Jews have never been a people, or that modern Jews are all converted Khazars, or that anti-Semitic terrorist violence is just — as sufficient grounds for establishing that someone does not belong in a university. Such people sometimes get fired from universities in democratic countries, including the United States. But such common sense must not be applied in Israel. 13. Other countries have jailed academic traitors in times of war. No one was permitted to march on British university campuses under Churchill with swastikas, and Oswald Mosley and his people spent the war in prison. That is no reason however to ban rallies in support of the Hamas and Hezballah on Israeli campuses today. Such rallies are academic freedom. The real threat to academic freedom is when Im Tirtzu organizes rallies AGAINST those rallies. 14. Students who dare to disagree with the correct ideas of radical anti-Israel faculty members should have their grades lowered. 15. Students who go to prison because they refuse to serve in the IDF deserve university backing and support, but those who go to reserves do not and should be barred from entering classrooms in uniform. 16. Calling for world boycotts of Israel is academic freedom. Denouncing such callers as traitors is McCarthyism. 17. Support for freedom of speech means never denouncing leftist neo-fascists who attempt to suppress the freedom of speech of non-leftists using SLAPP harassment law suits. SLAPP suits by leftists are simply defending democracy. 18. Academic diversity means having Ashkenazim, Mizrachim, women and Arabs in the same department all expressing the same correct leftist anti-Israel ideas. It never means including non-leftists in an academic department to achieve diversity by expressing dissident non-leftist ideas. 19. There is no reason for students to be exposed to any ideas other than those of the radical anti-Israel Left, including in course readings and lectures. There is no reason for leftist faculty members to balance their own biases in class by mentioning the views of those who disagree with them. 20. Radical Leftists should be free to call everyone else nasty names, because they are so moral, but no one should be permitted to call radical leftists nasty names. 21. Faculty chat lists should be censored so that leftists may freely insult non-leftists, but where no one should be allowed to answer them in kind. 22. Whenever a radical leftist is presented with documentation of facts that contradict the leftist's theology, the leftist must insist that no facts have been presented at all. 23. No scientific sources that presents facts contradicting leftist theology are admissable. They must be dismissed as being "right-wing." 24. Always support proposals that make real problems of the world worse just as long as advocating them can make you feel caring and righteous. Start with the release of jailed terrorists and with raising the minimum wage. 25. Always insist that there is no such thing as any traitor to be found on the Far Left. Deny that Noam Chomsky has ties to Holocaust Deniers and Hezbollah terrorism. Ditto for other radical anti-Israel extremists. Insist that Chomsky must be allowed to enter Israel, but at the same time endorse the efforts of the academic radicals in Israel to get IDF officers and Israeli politicians indicted for war crimes in Europe. 26. The only permissible set of policies that may be advocated for Israel is for limitless capitulation to the demands of Arab terrorists and Islamofascists. Never use the term Islamofascism, by the way. If peace has not been achieved, always insist that it is because Israel has not capitulated enough. 27. Churning out anti-Israel hate propaganda must always be counted as scholastic achievement and research. 28. Watchdog groups like Isracampus at www.isracampus.org.il or NGO Monitor must be suppressed in the name of defending democracy and freedom of speech. They should not be entitled to exercise THEIR freedom of speech. 29. Critical thinking must never involve criticism of the radical Left. 30. Always insist that the only REAL terrorism is when Israel defends itself. Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist,
a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author
of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and
satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic
community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is
is article appeared in the Jewish Press,
|
|
MIDEAST ANALYST REILLY: RADICAL ISLAMIS BLOCK PEACE
Posted by Israel Zwick, July 8, 2010. |
|
This was written by John Rossomando and it appeared in CN
Publications
|
|
Peace in the Middle East is impossible as long as radicals in the Islamic world persist in the "intellectual suicide" of insisting that Jews have no right to exist there, a leading Mideast analyst says. In an exclusive Newsmax.TV interview, Robert Reilly also contends that President Barack Obama's effort to appease Israel's enemies in the Muslim world makes peace even less likely. The Muslim world views the president's efforts to apologize for America's past actions as a "sign of weakness" that has failed to sway popular opinion about his policies in the Arab world, says Reilly, author of The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created The Modern Islamist. "I don't think that approach is working," Reilly says. "His own decline in the opinion polls in the Middle East more or less indicate that." Obama's decision to distance the United States from Israel to curry favor with the Arab and Muslim world has been "interpreted as an opportunity for them to become more aggressive and more provocative in their attempts to delegitimize ... Israel," says Reilly, whose career includes being senior adviser to the Iraqi Ministry of Information, director of Voice of America, and a special assistant to the president in the Reagan administration. Reilly believes the president's failure to stand with Israel when Turkey tried to break the blockade of Gaza was the most "egregious" example of this. "We are creating opportunities for Israel's enemies to become more aggressive, and that's a big mistake," Reilly tells Newsmax.TV. Reilly contends that the fight among Muslims, Israel, and the West rises primarily from theological rather than political sources. So political and economic programs cannot resolve this clash of civilizations unless the theological causes are addressed. He believes the discord dates to a ninth-century Islamic theological civil war that pitted a group known as the Mu'tazlis, who favored a reasoned approach to their religion, against a group known as the Ash'arites, who rejected human ability to understand God and the universe. The latter group won the struggle and ended the Mu'tazlis' efforts for a reasoned approach to Islam. "As Benedict XVI said in his Regensburg address, 'acting unreasonably is against God'; therefore, using violence to promote religion would be against God," Reilly says. But the Ash'arites created an Islam that views God as above reason, Reilly says. "And at the end of that trail, we end up with that notorious statement by Abdullah Azzam, who was one of Osama bin Laden's spiritual mentors, ... saying, 'Terrorism is an obligation in Allah's religion.' Radical Islam's repudiation of reason, he says, explains why Islamists such as bin Laden and the Muslim Brotherhood have been able to convince many Muslims to believe that their civilization lost its glories because it "left the path of God" and that war with the West and their own "apostate regimes" is the only way to regain it. Contact Israel Zwick by email at israel.zwick@earthlink.net and visit his website: www.cnpublications.net |
|
NASA SOCIAL MISSION: UPDATE; UNIFIL FALSELY DENIES HIZBULLAH IS ILLEGAL;
MUSLIMS REACTING TO TERRORISM IN PAKISTAN
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 8, 2010. |
|
NASA SOCIAL MISSION: UPDATE 
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden had claimed that President Obama
charged him to: (1) ...perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to
reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly
Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic
contribution to science, math, and engineering; (2) "...expand our
international relationships"; and (3) Inspire children to study
science and math. As the prior article on NASA's non-space missions
indicated, foreign Muslim scientists would be embedded in NASA.
Naturally, Americans objected. The government basically stood firm, but denied that diplomacy is NASA's primary mission. Problems with this new approach: 1. Attempting to make Muslims feel good about their medieval contributions to science is patronizing enough to cause resentment. That contradicts the goal. 2. Muslim countries now lag in science. It is not up to us to condescend to them but up to them to review and reform. Their societies cause the problem: insufficient resources, poor education, and Islamism. 3. For all of Obama's efforts, he is hardly more popular among foreign Muslims than was President Bush. His farcical efforts fail. Why persist in failure? 4. "Finally, it's a perversion of American scientific investment to distort a space agency into a feel-good tool of soft diplomacy. Just as soldiers are meant to fight, not carry out social programs, so scientists must work to expand the frontiers of knowledge, not to make select people 'feel good.'" (Daniel Pipes, 7/6/10 and National Review Online with links to documentation.) American universities have outstanding science programs, but fewer Americans study science and engineering. Why not address that program? The Wall St. Journal recently exposed NASA, and especially its direction by the Obama administration, as an absorber of tens of billions of dollars a year for programs that do not really put us into position for less productive and more costly manned space programs. Neither do they position us for more productive and less costly robotic space programs. This stand-pat position will not develop new technologies, the way NASA used to. Those technologies paid off for the rest of our society. Obama's oversight is rendering American science obsolete. Instead of boosting foreign science, let Obama stop sabotaging U.S. science! When the President and State Dept. fail to identify even radical Islam as a major threat to civilization, they ill serve U.S. national security. Obama made no distinctions, when he referred to helping "predominantly Muslim nations." That would include Iran, against which we have an embargo. It would include Saudi Arabia, which pays Pakistan and others to indoctrinate in an ideology of jihad against many, including us. Pakistan is an unstable, pro-terrorist state having nuclear weapons and which proliferated the technology. Iran is a probably stable but threatening pro-terrorist state that calls the U.S. "great Satan," seeks nuclear weapons, and proliferates other weapons. Let their scientists into NASA and learn how to deliver nuclear weapons to us? Scientists from other countries may share what they learn, too, with our enemies. How much did the thousands of Iraqi and Iranian students in U.S. universities learn advanced military technology? Why a preference for Muslims? Why not the Philippines, Chile, Mexico, and some African countries?
IDF DISPROVES UNIFIL DENIAL OF HIZBULLAH ILLEGALITY The IDF has declassified aerial photographs proving an extensive, illegal military buildup by Hizbullah in southern Lebanon right under the noses of the denying UNIFIL. The UN condemned Israeli over-flights, also a violation of the ceasefire resolution. What do the photographs show? The photographs document Hizbullah's extensive military presence, banned by UN resolution from southern Lebanon, but nevertheless existing in about 200 villages. [Last estimate was 160 villages.] The IDF has been presenting the evidence to UN delegations and to the UNIFIL commander. The IDF's extensive footage, videos, and maps show the houses used for weapons storage and command and control centers, the location of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) of up to half a ton, as in the village of el-Hiyyam, only 20km north of Kiryat Shmona in Israel. Hizbullah has about 20,000 fighters in southern Lebanon. Their mission would be to launch their up to 40,000 missiles, some of which can reach any distance into tiny Israel, and to block any resulting Israeli invasion. IDF maps identify weapons caches about 50 yards each from schools and hospitals. Most weapons storage and command posts are within or adjacent to civilians' homes. Obviously, Hizbullah is risking its civilians' lives, and the villages are military cover. The IDF believes that Hizbullah is preparing to raid into Israel. Why does UNIFIL still deny the huge build-up? (IMRA, 7/7/10.) The prospective scenario resembles what occurred in Gaza: (1) Terrorists embed their forces in civilian centers; (2) The terrorists raid Israel; (3) Israel attacks their armaments and troops; (4) Now, if not sooner, Hizbullah fires rockets at Israeli cities, killing many civilians; (5) As cynically calculated by the terrorists, many Lebanese civilians die during Israeli counter-attacks; (8) Now the UN springs to life, and condemns Israel, and only Israel, for civilian deaths. The UN is a predictable tool for terrorists against Israelis. It plays along with the pretense that those villages are civilian. It will pretend outrage at civilian deaths it did nothing to prevent. Its moral outrage will be limited to one side. It will have facilitated a war of civilian casualties, instead of letting the IDF destroy Hizbullah and prevent this. Note the combination of offense and defense, a point I often make to clarify most people's confusion about it. A major purpose of terrorist defense is to protect its offense.
CNN FIRES SENIOR MIDEAST EDITOR CNN has fired senior Mideast editor Octavia Nasr. She had expressed support for the recently deceased Hizbullah leader and cleric, Mohammed Fadlallah. She had called him "one of Hizbullah's giants I respect a lot." Arutz-7 and HonestReporting asked whether she is a sympathizer of that organization that the U.S. declares terrorist. He exhorted to terrorism. He regularly denounced the U.S. and Israel. He belittled the Holocaust. So they asked, which of his views does she support. How can she be expected to report objectively? A thousand demands for her to be fired hit CNN within two days. She deleted her tweet and apologized, "It conveyed that I supported Fadlallah's life's work. That's not the case at all, to me, as a Middle Eastern woman, Fadlallah took a contrarian and pioneering stand among Shia clerics on women's rights. He called for the abolition of the tribal system of 'honor killing.' He called the practice primitive and nonproductive. He warned Muslim men that abuse of women was against Islam. This does not mean I respected him for what else he did or said, far from it." CNN called her original statement an error of judgment that does not meet CNN editorial standards, and she will be dealt with. CNN did deal with her. It took an ax to her job (Arutz-7, 7/8/10). There is too much acting in panic over statements. The bigger picture may be missed. CNN should have reviewed her reporting for bias and the rest of its Mideast and political reporting. Her specific statements praising Fadlallah were correct. Her statement that she does not respect him for other things he did or said were not specific. Why wasn't her apology specific, to show sincerity? Why didn't she, a senior editor, know better and make the distinction at the outset? She misled people. A broad question is how to evaluate a terrorist who has some
socially redeeming quality. Another question, given the role of
deception in jihad, is how to identify an extremist pretending to be a
moderate.
POLAND TO EXTRADITE ISRAELI DIPLOMAT TO GERMANY Poland as acceded to an EU demand to extradite an Israeli diplomat to Germany. He is accused of illegally having acquired a German passport. This is in connection with the assassination of a terrorist leader in Dubai. Israel is assumed responsible for the assassination. Other countries have expelled Israeli diplomats over the passport issue (Arutz-7, 7/8/10). No mention was made whether the Israeli had diplomatic immunity. The evidence gathered to date implies an Israeli connection, but does not show Israeli governmental involvement. Countries do not like their passports tampered with, but shouldn't their indignation be tempered by the liquidation of a terrorist? If those indignant countries really were decent, they would volunteer passports for use in assassination of terrorists. International law requires countries to cooperate in apprehension of terrorists. Israel has come in for much criticism over this issue. Nevertheless,a reader, commenting about a prior article, praised a Malaysian politician as "brave" for criticizing Israel. To the contrary, that politician was not brave about that, but cowardly. My article shows that he switched to join the bandwagon in a country where he is on trial by the authoritarian regime and is marginalized. So he joins the majority in their bias. Almost everybody criticizes Israel. It often is much more difficult to praise Israel. Try it in a Muslim country or on a U.S. or Canadian campus and on some Israeli campuses. Some Israelis find they can sell a lot of slander of Israel to European media, because they give European dirt-seekers local color. Writing on the Internet, I get called names and Israel gets accused of everything. Some insist I am a paid agent of Israel. I know that is false. They do not know what is true, and they do not care, so long as they fling mud about Israel and about anyone who reports accurately about it. Other readers, who view these obviously unsupported, unaware, and slanderous personal attacks, should have no confidence in the accuracy of anything else the accusers claim.
ACCUSE U.S. CHARITIES OF OPPOSING U.S. POLICY: MORE HonestReporting adds to the story I presented about pro-Israel charities accused in the New York Times of opposing U.S. policy. The New York Times seems to have coordinated its report, copied largely from the anti-Zionist campaign by Gush Shalom in 2009, with far leftists. The secretly admitted purpose of Gush Shalom's campaign was to deprive Jews in Judea and Samaria from support by tax-exempt U.S. charities. The Times suggested that American Jewish organizations abuse U.S. tax laws to gather funds more easily here than in Israel, and use those funds to subsidize illegal building in the Territories. U.S. foreign policy opposes building in the Territories. [U.S. policy did not always. The policy is questionable. The bias behind it is more of a problem than non-conformity with it.] The Times article mentioned only in passing that pro-Arab charities also raise tax-exempt funds in the U.S.. The article did not note that some of their funds oppose U.S. foreign policies. They defame Israel and strive to combine Israel within a larger Arab population, effectively destroying Jewish self-determination [if not also the Jewish people]. For example, the New Israel Fund subsidizes hundreds of radical anti-Zionist, Israel-based organizations, including Adallah, Breaking the Silence, Gisha, B'Tselem, and Machsom Watch. They try to deprive Israel of the right and ability to defend itself. None is mentioned in the article. Only Peace Now [funded by an American branch] is mentioned as possibly having a political agenda. Most pro-Israel charities allot their funds to schools, synagogues, and recreation centers, all legitimate, as the Times admits. Also admitted, "most contributions go to large, established settlements close to the boundary with Israel that would very likely be annexed in any peace deal, in exchange for land elsewhere." CAMERA asks, "So why the front page story?" (Arutz-7, 7/8/10). This kind of campaign against Zionism goes back a dozen or so years. HonestReporting makes clear the double standard by the New York Times and the Left. As contrasted with the communities of Judea-Samaria, which enjoy much support by Israelis, most of the Far Left organizations have few members and would not exist except for foreign subsidy, including subsidy from the EU. That subsidy is subversive. The pro-Zionist subsidy is not. The Times exploits the ambiguity and even dishonesty of calling some Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria illegal. To illustrate, suppose that the municipal boundaries of a town in Judea extend I kilometer. Suppose, too, that construction required three phases of government approval: (1) Building plan consistent with zoning and building code; (2) Infrastructure and foundation; and (3) Sides and roof. A few years ago, some land owners apply for permits to construct houses 3/4 of a kilometer out, still within the municipal boundaries. The government approves phases (1) and (2). But the Defense Minister, head of a Far Left political party, refuses to review and approve phase 3. Left-wingers and the State Dept. complain that the proposed houses, 3/4 of a kilometer out, not being cheek-to-jowl with the existing houses, are "expansionist." They call it unfair to the Arabs. Being within the existing municipal bounds, the proposed housing is not expansionist. It does not take anything the Arabs own. Refusal to grant final approval is arbitrary and political. How can anyone call the housing that the government let get as far as infrastructure and foundation, "illegal?" What justifies their indignation? Meanwhile, Arabs come and settle on nearby public land they do not own. They build houses without regard to zoning and planning regulations. If the government demolishes some of their truly illegal housing, the world protests. Nobody said life is fair, but those who are filled with righteous indignation against Israel are the most unfair. As for the campaign with the double standard, building an unapproved outpost is far less of a problem than supporting the terrorist program. But the biggest problem is the U.S. trend toward too much control by unwise government.
ISRAELI GUNS LOST AFTER PASSING THROUGH NEW YORK Arriving at JFK airport in New York City on El Al Airlines, PM Netanyahu's bodyguards deposited weapons in a case, identified as such and supposedly forwarded with his connecting flight to Washington, DC, on American Airlines. The suitcase seems to have reached Los Angeles. In any case, the guns were not inside it.
JFK airport is notorious for theft of valuables, whether by the Mafia or freelancers. Seems like a peculiar safety measure that takes the guns away from those who guard a likely target, and tempts people who are likely to use the guns for ill purposes. At least they did not charge freight for the extra mileage to Los Angeles. A reader asked why I wrote about Islamic subversion in India, it does not involve Israel. My specialty is the Arab-Israel conflict, but my topic is broader, jihad. Jihad is an international phenomenon threatening civilization everywhere, including the U.S.. There are different terrorist gangs with different names in different places, but with similar ideology. India and Israel are two major fronts on which jihad is fought. The article explains how similar are those countries' circumstances. The two countries have begun pooling their resources for the common fight.
EX-LEGISLATOR PLEA-BARGAINS OVER ISLAMIC CHARITY Former Member of congress and Ambassador to the UN Mark Deli Siljander pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and acting as an unregistered foreign agent. He had worked for the Islamic American Relief Agency, which the Treasury Dept. had designated as a suspected fund-raising organization for terrorists. Prosecutors alleged the agency had ties to al-Qaida. The basis for the obstruction charge was not reported. Trial starts next week for Mr. Siljander and another man who pleaded guilty. They face a 15-year jail sentence (Wall St. J., 7/8/10, A4). Usually, a plea bargain is contracted to spare the time and expense of a trial, in return for a lesser sentence. The wording of the news brief is cautious but puzzling. Is the Islamic American Relief Agency only "suspected?" Are its ties to al-Qaida only "alleged?" People can be imprisoned for working for a suspected agency with alleged terrorist ties? Shouldn't the ties be determined, rather than alleged and suspected? Some reader make a sarcastic remark that I support state-terrorism by Israel. That is another of the dime-a-dozen, unsubstantiated accusations by anti-Zionists who seem not to know what terrorism is. I never support terrorism. Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians for political purpose. I condemn it. Israel does not condone it. Islamists feel they can do it. In combat, civilian bystanders may get hurt. Hamas and Hizbullah see to that, by deliberately fortifying civilian areas. They are guilty of risking civilian lives, a war crime. Some reader tried to contend that many Israeli civilians in their homes are soldiers, so Israel risks their lives and they are fair game. No, they are not soldiers, when at home. They are civilians, subject to recall to active duty. Israel has a standing army. When it is attacked, some of my sources tend to call the attackers terrorists, but such an attack, which may be aggression or a truce violation, is not terrorism.
CHRISTIAN BISHOPS' STATEMENT ABOUT PALESTINIAN ARABS IN LEBANON Maronite bishops made a statement favorable for the civil rights of stateless Palestinian Arabs descendants of refugees who evacuated to Lebanon. However, the bishops also said that the rights should be met by obligations. The first obligation is for government control of the arms in the Palestinian Arab communities as well as outside. [Those communities maintain their own militias, and the Lebanese Army stays outside, if not attacked from inside. Hizbullah has a militia not subject to the Lebanese Army, and which helps keep the Lebanese Army subject to it.] The statement referred to Lebanese concern about naturalizing Palestinian Arabs as if that would prevent them from entering areas in Israel. Another concern is about naturalizing them at a time when many Lebanese are leaving the country for better economic opportunity abroad (IMRA, 7/7/10). The statement is worded in hints, but probably the concern is that new citizens would then be eligible for jobs now denied them and which are scarce for existing citizens. Ever see the movie about Attila the Hun? He had better manners than most of my critics. What should one think of those anti-Zionists, who are ruder than a barbarian? How does their indecent behavior comport with their purported decency?
MUSLIMS REACTING TO TERRORISM IN PAKISTAN 
Terrorists believed to be al-Qaida had murdered 40 people at a moderate Muslim shrine in Lahore, Pakistan, but now Muslims are fighting back. The attack last week was against the predominant Sufi strain of Islam. Before that, a couple of mosques of smaller sects were bombed. Now the mainstream Muslims are armed. They intend to wrest control of mosques from radicals, some of whom they have fought, before. One such group of moderates is called Sunni Tehreek. It opposes imposition of Islamic law. Members have pistols, Uzis, and AK-47s. Other religious leaders seek government protection for themselves. The government threatens to crack down on vigilantes. When al-Qaida focused on anti-Americanism, it enjoyed popularity in Pakistan. Now that al-Qaida attacks civilians indiscriminately, it is reviled (Tom Wright, Shahnawaz Khan, Wall St. J., 7/8/10, A12). Al-Qaida alienated people in Iraq. It does in Afghanistan, but the people still fear them. The article states that al-Qaida has the Saudi religious ideology. Nevertheless, al-Qaida attacks Saudi Arabia, too. Nobody is safe from jihad. Muslims are major victims of it. I report this, but anti-Zionists accuse me of being anti-Muslim, not that they buttress their accusations with convincing argument or facts. Aren't they really the anti-Muslims ones, because they evince no interest in the many Muslim victims of jihad and of dictatorships? Their name-calling about being anti-Muslim is cover for their being antisemitic, for obviously they do not care about jihadi and dictatorial oppression of Muslims. I do.
UAE AMBASSADOR WANTS IRANIAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT STOPPED UAE Ambassador to the U.S. Yusef Al-Otaiba was asked whether he wants Iran's nuclear weapon development stopped by force. He replied, "Absolutely." He explained that his country is right in the line of fire. His Ministry denied that he had added a preference for military action over living with a nuclear-armed Iran. The Ambassador also pointed out that if countries in the region do not feel protected by the U.S. on this, they would likely make themselves more agreeable to Iran (Wall St. J., 7/8/10, Ed.). He did not say they would enter the nuclear arms race. Apparently the Arab states not allied with Iran want protection from Iran. Now think of the critical time lost, and the needless blaming of Israel, while Obama operated under the theory that Israel must settle up with the Arabs, on their terms, which would end Israeli viability, in order for the Arabs to support a raid on Iran's nuclear facilities. As if the U.S. needs Arab permission to protect itself from Iran. There do not seem to be reports lately of Iran having agents in other Gulf states, ready to cause an uprising, if Iran wishes. Has Iran sleeper terrorists there? A reader was surprised at my reference to Abbas as a terrorist. For 40 years, Abbas was the right-hand man of Arafat's terrorist Fatah and PLO. Abbas handled the money, paying the Munich massacre terrorists and paying for a ship of arms from Iran. Many of my articles detail Abbas' honoring of terrorists, his media's urging murder of Jews, his curriculum's indoctrinating in a terrorist ideology. His organization has a charter that calls for destroying Israel by any means. He calls his people's terrorism "resistance.' As a jihadist, he has no scruples, and would do anything in behalf of his cause. His only objection to terrorism is that it not be done at an inopportune time. Now while he may get much of what he wants by diplomacy is not opportune. But he threatens war if diplomacy does not deliver what he demands. The Palestinian Arab method of fighting mostly has been by terrorism.
KURDISH-ARAB TERRITORIAL DISPUTE KEEPS IRAQ UNSETTLED 
U.S. General Odierno said that Arab-Kurdish strife remains volatile in Iraq. Kurds want back the territory from which Saddam expelled Kurds. That territory has the bulk of Iraq's oil reserves. Meanwhile, U.S. troops are departing, the jihad there apparently under control. Gen. Odierno said that the UN may have to send troops positioned between the Kurds and the Arabs (IMRA, 7/8/10). Does the UN have the troops? Would they defend themselves, unlike the ones in UNIFIL in Lebanon? Where is the Security Council when it really is needed? Are the U.S. troops leaving too soon? If they leave, would Iran re-start the jihad? Are the Iraqi terrorists as few as believed, or were they just quiescent while the U.S. persuaded itself it could remove its troops? On terrorism, anti-Zionists occasionally employ logic that might be persuasive, if they did not base it on statements they attribute to me but which I did not make. I had written that Hamas fortifies, fights from, and stores explosives in civilian facilities, making those facilities legitimate targets. A reader called me inconsistent, because Israeli reservists also live in civilian areas, and if they are not on duty, neither are Hamas troops on duty when living at home. I had not mentioned Hamas troops off duty. I had mentioned munitions dumps and using houses, mosques, hospitals, and schools as firing platforms, as Hamas does. On the other hand, terrorists, who do not fight by the rules of war, and therefore are outlaws, and whom international law would deem common enemies of mankind, are criminals who may be attacked at any time. Most of Hamas' men are terrorists.
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
OIL DISCOVERY IN THE NEGEV!
Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, July 8, 2010. |
|
Israel is always held to a different, indeed unforgiving, standard compared to her enemies. Even when invading Gaza to stop the firing of deadly missiles into her territory, she is accused of a disproportionate response. Would any other rational country react differently? Would any other country be blasted for protecting its citizens? More recently, Israel is castigated worldwide when her soldiers use force to defend their lives from knife wielding blockade busters aboard a ship headed toward Gaza. Would any other rational soldiers react differently? Would any other rational country's military not attempt to inspect a ship for weaponry, no doubt meant to arm its mortal enemies? Furthermore, why doesn't the world blatantly condemn terrorist groups such as Hamas for deliberately using its own citizens as human shields during combat against the Israel? Why does the world instead blame Israel when inevitable civilian casualties occur? Without exception, one tiny democratic Westernized nation surrounded by a wide expanse of hostile neighbors, defending her citizens each and every day; must walk on egg shells lest she be verbally pummeled by civil nations that should know better. Could one motivating factor be Arab/Muslim oil? What if a massive oil reserve was discovered say under Israel's Negev desert? Would civil nations then begin to sing a different tune? Why not perpetrate a ruse? Convincingly announce the fossil fuel find of the century within the boundaries of the State that can do no right. Overnight, that same State will morph into the State that can do no wrong. Critics worldwide from oil dependent nations will suck up to Israel, change their tune, send invitations to her Prime Minister hoping to do business; extend the red carpet treatment whenever he deigns to pay a visit. When in fact the bluff is discovered, when deceived nations revert to previous attitudes, at least their hypocrisy will be evident. That has to be worth something! Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at larose@snip.net |
|
ANATOMY OF A PALESTINIAN "CONCESSION"
Posted by Michael Freund, July 8, 2010. |
|
Earlier this week, just in advance of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington, a brief flurry of excitement took hold of the media, as word spread of what appeared to be a major conciliatory gesture by the Palestinians. In a well-timed leak, the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper reported over the weekend that Palestinian Chairman Mahmoud Abbas had offered Israel the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City as part of a future peace agreement. The proposal, according to the paper, was among several ideas that Abbas had recently submitted in writing to US Mideast negotiator George Mitchell. The rest of eastern Jerusalem, the Palestinian leader declared, would serve as the capital of a Palestinian state. At first glance, Abbas' offer would appear to herald a significant form of progress. After all, the thorny issue of control over Jerusalem and its holy sites has long confounded efforts to reach an accommodation between the two sides. By granting Israel a foothold in the heart of ancient Jerusalem, Abbas would appear to be conceding that the Jewish people can stake a legitimate claim to this very special place. But a closer look reveals that this Palestinian "concession", like so many others before it, is in fact little more than a hollow and ultimately inconsequential act. And it would be foolish for Israel and its supporters to be duped into thinking otherwise. To begin with, how can Abbas offer Israel something that we already have? Last time I checked, the Western Wall was safely and securely under Israeli control. Indeed, it was 43 years ago this summer, during the 1967 Six Day War, that Israel liberated the site from Jordanian occupation in an act of self-defense. As everyone knows, the Wall was built by Herod as part of the Temple compound, where the Jewish people were worshipping G-d two millennia before the PLO was created. The Western Wall is ours by right and by history, and thank G-d, it is in Israeli hands. We do not need Mr. Abbas, or anyone else for that matter, to give us something we already possess. And we most certainly don't need to view his reported acknowledgment of reality as constituting a "concession" or a "gesture" which merits a reciprocal response. To do so would be to grant the Palestinians a huge advantage at the negotiating table, for it would transform their verbal acceptance of the most basic truths into something that Israel would be expected to pay for with tangible assets. "Want us to recognize that Israel has a right to live and breathe?" the Palestinians will ask, "then ante up!" "Want us to accept that you have a right not to be thrown into the Mediterranean?" they will declare, "then give us a down-payment." That is not a recipe for peace, it is a formula for failure. The Palestinian acceptance of Israel's right to Jerusalem, just like their recognition of Israel's existence, must be viewed as a prerequisite, rather than a part of, any diplomatic process. Israel cannot and must not allow Abbas to arrogate to himself the ability to force us into yielding on our positions in exchange for mere words. As it is, his authority barely extends beyond the four corners of his own desk, which is yet another reason not to take his pronouncements all too seriously. But if we place ourselves at the mercy of Abbas' fickle approval, we will most certainly weaken our stance beyond repair. In any event, the questions raised by the Palestinian leader's dubious generosity quickly became moot. Within 24 hours of the Al-Hayat report, Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat went on Israel Radio on Sunday morning to deny that the Palestinians had made any such offer regarding the Western Wall or the Old City. Jerusalem, Erekat insisted, must be under Palestinian control. So much for Palestinian flexibility. Not surprisingly, amid all this fuss, little attention was paid to the really big story regarding Abbas, who once again revealed his true colors by heaping praise on a mass-murderer. On Saturday, Abbas sent his condolences to the family of Abu Daoud, the mastermind of the terrorist attack against the Israeli athletic team in the 1972 Munich Olympics, who had passed away the day before. "He is missed," Abbas wrote in his letter to Abu Daoud's relatives, praising the terrorist as "one of the leading figures of Fatah" and thanking him for having "spent his life in resistance and sincere work as well as physical sacrifice for his people's just causes". Among Abu Daoud's so-called "just causes" was the taking of 11 Israeli Olympians hostage in Munich, all of whom were killed during a failed rescue attempt by German police. "I regret nothing," Abu Daoud told Germany's Spiegel TV in 2006, defiantly adding that, "You can only dream that I would apologize." For Abbas to praise such a man and mourn his passing speaks volumes as to the kind of person he truly is, far more than any supposed gestures he may or may not have made. So let's stop seeing "concessions" where there aren't any and peacemakers where they do not exist. It should be obvious that from people such as Abbas we require neither recognition nor beneficence. And neither should we fawn all over them in order to get it.
This appeared in the Jerusalem Post
|
|
ENEMY OF THE STATE Nº 38
Posted by Susana K-M, July 7, 2010. |
|
This was written by Frank J. Tipler and it appeared on Pajamas Media.
As a scientist who dares to "think different" and "question authority" on global warming, I'm in good company. |
|
The National Academy of Sciences, in its official journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has just published a list of scientists whom it claims should not be believed on the subject of global warming. I am number 38 on the list. The list of 496 is in descending order of scientific credentials. Professor Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Study, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a fellow of the Royal Society, is number 3 on the list. Dyson is a friend of mine and is one of the creators of relativistic quantum field theory; most physicists think he should have shared the Nobel Prize in Physics with Richard Feynman. MIT professor Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist who is also a member of the National Academy, is number 4. Princeton physics professor William Happer, once again a member of the National Academy of Sciences, is number 6. I'm in good company. The list is actually available only online. The published article, which links to the list, argues that the skeptical scientists — the article calls us "climate deniers," trying to equate us with Holocaust deniers — have published less in climate "science" than believers in anthropogenic global warming (AGW). True. But if the entire field of climate "science" is suspect, if the leaders of the field of climate "science" are suspected of faking their results and are accused of arranging for their critics' papers to be rejected by "peer-reviewed" journals, then lack of publication in climate "science" is an argument for taking us more seriously than the leaders of the climate "science." Freeman Dyson, for example, was not trained as a physicist but as a mathematician. His contribution to quantum field theory was applying his mathematical skills to showing that Feynman's work was mathematically rigorous and mathematically equivalent to another formulation due to Julian Schwinger (who shared the Nobel with Feynman). Freeman has spent the fifty years after this work switching from field to field, always making important contributions to these fields, and making them precisely because he has looked at the evidence from a different point of view. Dick Lindzen actually is an insider in real climate science, but he is an insider who can't be bought, an insider who follows the evidence rather than the grant money. Will Happer is mainly an experimental atomic physicist, but a physicist who has a decades-old reputation for investigating extraordinary claims in all areas of physics. Will was one of the experimentalists who exposed the cold fusion scam a number of years ago. As for myself, I'm a cosmologist, with a special interest in the anthropic principle, as my National Academy of Sciences security police dossier correctly notes. Twenty odd years ago, I co-authored a book, published by Oxford University Press, on the anthropic principle. As my co-author and I pointed out, the essence of the anthropic principle is eliminating human bias from the interpretation of observations, and we focused mainly on eliminating such bias from cosmology. But human bias is human bias. I myself have looked at some of the raw data from surface stations that measure the Earth's temperature. The raw data are from selected sites in the USA, in New Zealand, in Australia, and in Sweden. I selected these sites because I'm reasonably sure they will not have bias due to changing human habitation, or human wars, or human politics. These sites show no warming in the twentieth century. So I have to conclude that we don't even know if there was any warming on Earth in the twentieth century. Notice that I am not saying that there has been no warming, just that the available raw data that I've personally been able to check do not show it. Until all the raw temperature data are placed online, so the data can be checked by anybody, a rational person has to suspend belief in global warming, to say nothing of AGW. The official government adjusted data for these sites do show a warming trend. All the warming is in the "corrections." Sorry, I don't buy it. Especially from "scientists" who are known to "correct' their raw data to "hide the decline." There have been calls to silence the 496 scientists on the list. Besides "climate deniers,' we have been called "traitors." We all know the penalty for treason. So far, no federal agents have come to pick me up. But nowhere in Mein Kampf does Adolf Hitler call for the extermination of the Jews. Hitler does repeatedly refer to the Jews as "tuberculosis bacilli." What does one want to do with tuberculosis bacilli? I'm an enemy of the state. It's an honor. Frank J. Tipler is Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University. He is the co-author of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford University Press) and the author of The Physics of Immortality and The Physics of Christianity both published by Doubleday. |
|
LYNCH-MOB JUSTICE
Posted by Susana K-M, July 7, 2010. |
|
This was written by Melanie Phillips and it appeared in Wall Street Journal (Europe). |
|
In both Britain and America, ideological prejudices are coming to undermine the rule of law. In a number of incidents, people who have committed criminal acts have been acquitted or had their cases dismissed purely because they represent a politically correct cause or belong to a 'powerless' victim group. An English jury decided in September 2008 that causing more than €35,000 of damage to a coal-fired power station was justified as a protest against man-made global warming. The jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage after they argued that they had a 'lawful excuse' to trash property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater harm caused by climate change. The jurors arrived at this decision having sat through a propaganda barrage by prominent advocates of the man-made global warming theory, including the pioneer green evangelist James Hansen and the environmental campaigner and newly elected Tory MP Zac Goldsmith. The court case was thus effectively turned into a platform for tendentious ideological propaganda, which appears not only to have been endorsed by the jurors but to have persuaded them that it even justified destroying someone's property. In a similar English case last month at Hove Crown Court, seven activists were acquitted after causing €180,000 in damage to an arms factory owned by a company that sold military equipment to Israel, when they argued they were seeking to prevent 'Israeli war crimes' against Palestinians. The activists had broken into the factory at night, having previously videotaped interviews declaring their intention to smash it up. Yet with hostility to the Jewish state now at white-hot levels in Britain, such otherwise criminal activity is deemed to be justified by a jury if it is committed in the cause of damaging Israeli interests. Even the judge in this case, George Bathurst-Norman, appears to have agreed. In his summing-up, he instructed the jury that 'you may well think that hell on earth would not be an understatement of what the Gazans suffered in that time.' He also highlighted the testimony to the court by Caroline Lucas, a Green member of Parliament, who argued that supposedly 'all democratic paths had been exhausted' before the activists had embarked upon their action. What 'democratic paths'? Israel was trying to prevent Hamas — considered a terrorist organization even by Her Majesty's government — from firing rockets at Israeli civilians. Whatever one's view of that conflict, it is a political opinion. It surely should have nothing to do with the exercise of English law designed to protect people's property against criminal damage. It really has come to something when a British judge appears to be encouraging a jury to excuse criminal activity because he sympathizes with the political motive behind it. Thus the impartial administration of justice is now giving way in Britain to bias, bigotry and ideology. Something very similar is happening in America, too. In May, the U.S. Justice Department suddenly dismissed a voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party. Dressed in black uniforms and jackboots, with one of them menacingly tapping a baton, they stood at the entrance of a Philadelphia polling booth on the day Barack Obama was elected president, hurling threats and insults at people turning up to vote, such as 'white devils' or 'You're about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.' Despite witness testimonies and even video footage proving their guilt, all charges were dropped against three of the defendants and a mild restraining order was applied to a fourth. The only reason given by the Justice Department was that 'the facts and the law' did not support proceeding with the indictment. The lead attorney on the case, J. Christian Adams, resigned in protest. In his eyes, this was an open and shut case of voter intimidation. 'It doesn't get any easier than this,' he said. To Mr. Adams, there was no doubt about the real reason for the abandonment of this case. There is a 'pervasive hostility to bringing these sorts of civil-rights cases' where the victims are white and the perpetrators are black. This opposition within the Justice Department to a 'race-neutral enforcement' of voting-rights laws stretches back to the Bush administration, according to Mr. Adams. How remarkable that in its neuralgic sensitivity to charges of racial prejudice, the American Justice Department should decide whether or not to proceed with a case on the basis of the color of a defendant's skin. But that is precisely the moral and intellectual inversion that has resulted from 'politically correct' ideology. Over a wide range of issues — such as racism, environmentalism or anti-Zionism — truth and lies, justice and injustice, victim and victimizer, have all been turned upside down. Based on the Marxist dogma that power is synonymous with oppression and powerlessness with virtue, such ideology has also given self-designated 'powerless' groups a free pass. Whatever wrong they may do or disadvantages they may suffer from are never their fault or their responsibility. It is always the 'oppressor' group that is to blame. The effects of this have been felt across society's institutions — education, family life, employment, the media. Far from eradicating intolerance and injustice, it has led to bigotry and reverse discrimination against majorities or demonized 'oppressor' groups. So in Britain, it is becoming ever harder for Christians to be allowed to live according to their religious ethics. There has been a string of cases in which Christians have been forced to step down from their jobs as marriage registrars or from adoption panels because they refuse to officiate at gay partnership ceremonies or hand children for adoption by gay couples. In such cases, it seems there is no longer any room for the exercise of religious conscience. Until now, the law has not required someone to act against their religious beliefs. Doctors, for example, can conscientiously opt out of performing abortions. Similarly, in instances of gay partnership or gay adoption, the Christian officials should have been allowed to stand down in those cases. But it seems that the demands of the 'oppressed' gay groups require the extinction of any contrary interests. This is an abuse of power and the antithesis of a free and liberal society. Furthermore, what is under assault is not some minority creed but the moral codes that lie at the very root of British society and Western civilization. Now this onslaught appears to be subverting the rule of law itself. Objectivity and neutrality are being replaced in the justice system by subjectivity and bias. Feelings are being allowed to trump facts. Sympathy with the perceived underdog is being allowed to take precedence over the laws that define society's benchmarks of tolerable behavior. If you belong to an 'oppressed' group, such as black people, or espouse an approved cause, such as environmentalism, you are now above the law. But if you belong to a despised 'oppressive' category, such as Israelis, white people or the coal industry, you can no longer look to the law for protection. An impartial and objective justice system is fundamental to a free society. When ideology replaces the rule of law, the ultimate result will be rule by lynch mob. Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
MAHMOUD ABBAS HAILED AS THE "MODERATE" P.A. leader
Posted by Sheridan Neimark, July 7, 2010. |
|
This appeared today in Israel Unity Coalition
|
|
President Mahmoud Abbas (former PLO leader Abu Mazen). Today he is hailed as the "moderate" P.A. leader. Here is a brief account this "peace partner's history: It points up the very pertinent question which was not asked or addressed today, is he an appropriate partner for peace?
|
|
THE ARAB VEIL OF DECEPTION AND THE LEFT
Posted by Victor Sharpe, July 7, 2010. |
|
Though they will not expose it in the media, Arab-Muslim anti-Israel activists feel a profound and debilitating sense of humiliation at the inherent failings of their own societies. So what better way to deflect their dissatisfaction within Araby than to employ the language of the Left — in particular, the use of such phrases as "national liberation" and "anti-apartheid" — with which to level false charges against the embattled Jewish state? It doesn't matter to these Arab-Muslims, to their few Christian-Arab apologists, or to their leftist and progressive amen chorus that Israel is dwarfed by an enormous Arab landmass, which is 570 times greater than that of Israel — a state itself no larger than Wales or New Jersey. Indeed, the leftists, while ironically turning on the one state in the Middle East that provides its people with freedoms no Arab or Muslim country will ever provide, choose to embrace the Arab falsehoods. Why? Because the Left is terrified of being seen as racist. Yet by their very own actions and words, they are just that. The Left buys the Arab and Muslim lies against Israel because they believe that the Arabs can never change for the better. That is pure racism of the worst kind. The corollary to this put-down of an entire Arab ethnicity is that the Left refuses to admit that it is the Arab-Muslim culture that actively engages in the very evil practices that they falsely hurl at Israel. And where do you find apartheid, racism, repression and torture? Why, in the very Arab-Muslim world the Left supports and embraces. Leftists will always invoke liberal values, but if they truly cared about them, they would first address the Arab-Muslim political culture that by its very nature is inimical to liberalism. And when such leftist hypocrisy is exposed, the Left always retreats into a tawdry defense of hurling charges of Islamophobia and racism at all who attempt to correct it. Indeed, left-wing attempts at silencing critics who question the Left's manic obsession of only attacking Israel merely continue to hurt the millions of Arab-Muslims who suffer within societies still rooted in a 7th-century mindset. The leftist and progressive so-called human rights activists and college-age drones, while attacking the Jewish state, remain astonishingly silent on the massive human rights abuses endemic in the Arab and Muslim world. Gaza's shops are full of every commodity; their people are well-fed, despite what the mainstream media tells you. Gaza's Hamas occupier (the same Islamic terror machine that calls in its charter for the slaughter of Jews and the violent destruction of Israel) continues to be the recipient of billions of dollars from the European Union, the United Nations, and even from American taxpayer money, courtesy of Barack Obama. But it is Gaza that remains the object de jour of the loony Left while the suffering Kurds, the disinherited Tibetans, and the black victims of Arab tyranny and genocide in Darfur are conveniently ignored. The Left fails to appreciate that it is empirically racist to have lower expectations for non-Westerners. If the radical Left and progressives (today's communists by another name) are so concerned about "justice and peace" — words which have now become terminally tarnished by their utterances in the mouths of so many hypocrites and charlatans — they should be challenged about how their persistent attacks on Israel wound terribly the Jewish survivors of Palestinian Arab terror or the Jewish refugees from the Arab and Muslim world. Or is Jewish blood of no consequence to the radical Left? If the Left, radical and otherwise, is for justice, why then do its members ignore the Jews who were persecuted, uprooted, and forced from their homes in Araby into exile simply because they were Jews? The question every leftist should be asked is why does the Left not demand justice for these victims instead of obsessively attacking the ancestral and biblical homeland these Jewish refugees now live in? One wonders if leftists truly understand geographical, historical and political realities in the Middle East and North Africa from which some 800,000 Jews were brutally expelled — a number greater than those Arabs who needlessly followed the commands of their corrupt leaders and left their homes during the 1948 Arab-Israel War. One wonders if leftists know that in 1921/22, Britain tore away almost 80% of Mandatory Palestine — the territory that lay east of the Jordan River — and arbitrarily created a new Arab state today called Jordan? Or that, in reality, Jordan is Palestine? Do the leftists and progressives know, or even care, that Jews were immediately and ethnically cleansed from that Arab occupied area — parts of the very land they had been promised by the British government in 1917 as a future national Jewish home? Do the masses of college students in the U.S., who flock to the siren call of the mendacious Arab anti-Israel disinformation machine, realize that the Arab-Muslim nation has spread over nearly 12 million square kilometers in the Mid-East and North Africa? Do these same college-age students ever ask themselves why so many educated, intelligent young Arabs and Muslims become suicide killers and massacre thousands — mostly fellow Muslims — and why so many millions of Muslims applaud their atrocities? Why does the Left remain so strangely indifferent in the face of the indoctrination of so many young, susceptible Arab and Muslim minds by hate-filled imams? These facts should repel Western college and university students who would fiercely reject the notion that they too are being indoctrinated. But it seems that by their willing acceptance and espousal of the disinformation they receive from the Left, and from the highly sophisticated and well-financed Arab propaganda machine, they are themselves being indoctrinated. Perhaps the narrative will finally change within Western campuses. The pendulum will swing back. Perhaps the students, the potential leaders of the future, will come to understand that Israeli Jews try to survive on a tiny sliver of land between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan — a mere forty-plus miles at its widest — and all that is left to them from the original Palestine Mandate. And even the very ancestral and biblical Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank) is required by the world to be torn away from that narrow strip and given to the Arabs to create yet another Arab state. But such a mini-state will be composed of hate-filled Muslim-Arabs who have undergone decades of anti-Jewish indoctrination and who desire one thing only: the violent destruction of what is left of Israel. This is no peace process. This is future genocide. Perhaps the Western students will come to realize that despite the torrent of Arab-Muslim lies against Israel and the Left's eager embrace of such lies, aided and abetted by the willing connivance of so many extreme leftist tenured professors, Israel's Muslim neighbors will never accept a non-Muslim state on land upon which the Muslim foot once trod triumphal — even though the Jewish inhabitants preceded Islam by millennia. Perhaps, perhaps, they may even come to realize, before it is too late, that their own Western societies are threatened by Islamic triumphalism and the covert introduction of Islamic sharia law. Or will they and the Left continue to exist under a horrifying veil of deception? On the day Israel was reconstituted in its ancient homeland, the Muslim-Arabs tried to exterminate it. They have been trying ever since, be it by all-out wars, by relentless terror, or by the current stratagem of de-legitimization and demonization of the Jewish homeland using thugs and jihadists on "peace flotillas" posing as human rights activists. Victor Sharpe is a freelance writer and author of Volumes One and Two of Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish state. |
|
ABBAS: "IF ALL OF YOU [ARAB STATES] WILL FIGHT ISRAEL, WE ARE IN FAVOR"
Posted by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik, July 7, 2010. |
|
The official Palestinian Authority daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida reports that PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbassupports negotiations with Israel today because it is the only option. However, the newspaper quotes Abbas about the military option: "If you [Arab states] want war, and if all of you will fight Israel, we are in favor. But the Palestinians will not fight alone because they don't have the ability to do it." The PA daily reports that Abbas said this at a meeting with writers and journalists in the home of the Palestinian Ambassador to Jordan. The following is the transcript from the official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida: "'We don't accept the statement [of Hamas]: a [Palestinian] state of resistance and refusal. What we hear from everyone is that the basis is negotiations, at a time that the entire world agrees about this, despite the absence of other options, we either have negotiations or no negotiations, what has put Israel in the corner. Itamar Marcus, Director of Palestinian Media Watch (http://www.pmw.org.il), was Israeli representative to the Tri- Lateral Anti Incitement Committee established under the Wye accords, and has written reports on Palestinian Authority, Syrian and Jordanian schoolbooks. |
|
FROM ISRAEL: SPECULATION GALORE
Posted by Arlene Kushner, July 7, 2010. |
|
That there should be an enormous amount of speculation today regarding what took place at the White House yesterday is rather inevitable. And, beyond a certain reasonable point, becomes a futile exercise. From one source I learned that, while this was not mentioned during the "press availability" time yesterday, Obama people have since leaked the fact that during their meeting Netanyahu and Obama discussed possible ways to institute an extension of the freeze. This is not exactly a startling revelation. This particular source concluded that this may mean a secret de facto agreement that does not require Netanyahu to make an announcement. Sure, it could be. But it may also mean that the two men might not have been able to reach a mutually satisfactory arrangement. Perhaps Netanyahu did suggest that Obama acknowledge the Bush letter, in return for a freeze outside of major settlement blocs, only to find that Obama wouldn't buy into this. ~~~~~~~~~~ And that evasive non-response by Obama last night — when asked about whether he wants to see an extension of the freeze — that he hopes face-to-face negotiations start before the freeze ends in September? It caught my eye, and a great many other eyes as well, but without unanimity regarding what it means. There were analysts who felt this meant that Netanyahu was off the hook with regard to continuing the freeze — that is, that progress would proceed independent of an extension. And then there was those who thought it meant that further progress would be stymied if there weren't an extension, and that direct talks would provide the motivation for instituting it. And so it goes, ad infinitum. ~~~~~~~~~~ One thing that there was a considerable amount of agreement about was the fact that Obama was posturing — that his good words towards Netanyahu should not be embraced at face value because the president is a man who is not to be trusted. Staunchly right-wing Deputy Minister for Negev and Galilee Development Ayoub Kara put it bluntly: "He doesn't sound evil now because he needs Jewish votes and money...But I won't forget the pressure he put on Netanyahu and the stress I saw in the prime minister the last time he came back from Washington...I hope he will stay this way, but I doubt it." The outspoken MK Aryeh Eldad, Chair of the Land of Israel Caucus in the Knesset, echoed this sentiment: "Obama doesn't sound wicked now, but he was merely buying time. Obama is betting on getting the entire pot. Our job [in the Caucus] will be to put pressure on Netanyahu so he won't make concessions that threaten Israel's future." These sound to me like reasonable assessments. Genuine trust in Obama would be exceedingly naive in the face of this man's stated positions and acts to date. ~~~~~~~~~~ In fact, journalist David Bedein has uncovered an instance of Obama administration duplicity that is concrete and not speculative. In his statement during the press conference, in the presence of Netanyahu, the president mentioned incitement. First our prime minister stated that peace "requires that the Palestinian Authority prepare its people for peace — schools, textbooks, and so on." (Remember, I mentioned last night the urging of Knesset Education Committee Chair MK Zevulun Orlev that this issue be raised.) Then, Obama said: " I think it's very important that the Palestinians not look for excuses for incitement, that they are not engaging in provocative language." The official press release from the White House Press Office, however, does not mention incitement. In fact, I will carry this further than Mr. Bedein did: If you look
at the entire official White House "Readout of the President's Meeting
with Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel"
~~~~~~~~~~ What is this business of needing to do more for the people of Gaza? Even after clear evidence has been presented of the fact that there is no humanitarian crisis there, coupled with a willingness by Israel to open the crossings for even more goods. There is an international obsession with the Palestinian Arabs and the obligation to attend to them. ~~~~~~~~~~ An article by Ben-Dror Yemini that ran in Maariv in Hebrew, with regard to the situation in Gaza, and presented in translation here (thanks to Daily Alert www.dailyalert.org), is not only eye-opening, it is mind-blowing: "Turkey was the most prominent country in the recent flotilla, but according to a number of indicators, the humanitarian situation in Turkey is worse than it is in Gaza. Will you please share this information broadly — copying and pasting, as necessary — with full attribution to Maariv and Daily Alert. The Hebrew original is here:
~~~~~~~~~~ Then from MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute) we have this citation from Muhammad Hamadi, in his column in the Egyptian daily Rooz Al-Yousuf, dated June 29, 2010. Drawing information from a Hamas website, Hamadi shows that despite talk of a Gaza siege, produce, poultry and beef are cheaper in Gaza than in Egypt: "What Siege Are They Talking About?" ~~~~~~~~~~ One good thing that does seem to have come from the Obama-Netanyahu meeting: Some weeks ago, the US voted for a UN resolution calling for a nuclear non-proliferation conference in about a year. The resolution singled out Israel alone by name, and undermined the policy of "nuclear ambiguity" that the US had traditionally accepted. Now Obama said the US would not encourage this conference unless all nations "feel confident that they can attend" and that Israel will not be singled out. What is more: Army Radio has reported that the US sent Israel a letter indicating that it respected our status as a non-signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This is major with regard to our deterrence power. ~~~~~~~~~~ Also good news, this from yesterday's Washington Times: "The United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that the benefits of bombing Iran's nuclear program outweigh the short-term costs such an attack would impose. ~~~~~~~~~~ There are other Gulf (Arab Sunni) states that feel the same but that do not consider it politically prudent to say so publicly. Is it too much to hope, that this might break the ice and make it possible for others to be more candid? This would change the dynamic and move Obama in the direction of considering an attack — which, it would clear, is what the "moderate" Muslim world he is courting wants. ~~~~~~~~~~ This news report will either sicken you, or send you into gales of laughter. Take your pick: According to YNet, members of the Nobel Committee in Oslo have been approached lately by associates of PA president Mahmoud Abbas, including former PA prime minister Ahmed Qurei, in a bid to have the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Abbas. I've written several times about how Abbas seeks to emulate Yasser Arafat, and here you are. Of course, as ridiculous as it was for that old obdurate terrorist Arafat to receive the award, he had at least made a pretense of peace, and had signed the Oslo Accords with Israeli PM Rabin. What, pray tell, has Abbas done? He won't even meet face-to-face with Netanyahu. I have no serious expectation that the Committee will honor this request. It may, in fact, have sent it members into gales of laughter, as well. But there is a way in which this provides comfort for me: It is evidence of the fact that Abbas is out of touch with reality, and has expectations that are unrealistic. Let his expectation that the UN Security Council will vote a Palestinian state into being turn out to be just as unrealistic. ~~~~~~~~~~ Mentioned in passing: The other day Defense Minister Ehud Barak met with PA prime minister Salam Fayyad. Subsequent to the meeting Hamas charged him with caving to the enemy. The point here is one of political climate, which tone Hamas very much sets. Fayyad does not remotely have the political clout or the prestige in the street to counter the Hamas position. ~~~~~~~~~~ See and share this great YouTube video addressing Israel's stunning innovative success. We are a nation like no other:
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
MALAYSIAN POLITICIAN NOW ANTI-ISRAEL; DEFEAT POLITICAL ISLAM IN INDIA;
MOTHER THWARTS KIDNAPPER IN SAMARIA
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 7, 2010. |
|
MALAYSIAN POLITICIAN JOINS ANTI-ISRAEL BANDWAGON 
Anwar Ibrahim is a Malaysian known for promoting liberal democracy in Muslim countries and for his neoconservative American friends. He encounters difficulty in his own country, but receives no support from the Obama administration. Lately he seems to have joined the anti-Zionist bandwagon, for political advantage. He now denounces an alleged Zionist interference with Malaysia. He is referring to a Washington, DC public relations firm, Apco Worldwide, whose client is the semi-authoritarian Malaysia regime. Mr. Ibrahim calls that company "Jewish controlled." Recently, Ibrahim joined an Israeli flag-burning demonstration in front of the U.S. Embassy. How fast he turned from "pro-American democrat to anti-Israel zealot!" This may be the trend (IMRA, 7/5/10). What is "Jewish-controlled?" There is an assumption that someone theoretically born, but who may be alienated more or less from his heritage, somehow serves at Israel's bidding. That assumption combines ignorance with antisemitism. The anti-Zionist form of antisemitism is not just psychotic scapegoating and bigotry. It also is opportunistic. It always was. In the Middle Ages, gentiles borrowed money from the Jews, the bankers of their time, and then murdered them in the name of religion but to erase the debt. Some left-wing Jews join in anti-Zionism not because they believe it, but because they think that is the way to retain acceptance by Far Left gentiles. Where, in all of this irrationality is truth and justice? Truth? Justice? An anti-Zionist reader makes up blood libels. He claims that the Zionists felt that land in Palestine was theirs to take, they exterminated Arab culture, and murdered the Arabs. History shows otherwise. I remember the little blue box in which my mother deposited a little money, to help Jews buy land in Palestine. Zionists paid top dollar. Even Arab tenants got paid, enabling them to buy land! Just before modern Zionism, Muslim rule had left the country mostly depopulated from ruined land, equal opportunity mosquitoes, and lack of an economy. Such land as remained arable had been taken from the peasants by Arab bankers and landlords. Zionists returned, and with British help, cleared the swamps, restored the land, and built an economy. Now that Arabs could survive there and earn a living there, Arabs immigrated to the area in large numbers. Britain facilitated this immigration, and Jews did not try to block it. Arabs harassed the Jews of Jaffa so much, that many Jews left to erect Tel Aviv. In Hebron, the Jewish community that went back about 3,000 years, was expelled by the Arabs for religious reasons, the Arab religious outlook being bigoted and apartheid. In 1947, the Palestinian and foreign Arabs attempted genocide. Not able to make a case from history, that anti-Zionist reader makes up a favorable version and attributes to me criminal theories I do not have and never expressed, but which mirror his own.
BRITAIN, UAE, GERMANY, KUWAIT REFUSE TO REFUEL IRANIAN PLANES Adding their contribution to the U.S. sanctions against Iran, Britain, Germany, the UAE, and Kuwait now refuse to refuel Iranian planes landing in their countries (IMRA, 7/5/10). The Wall St. Journal (7/2/10) had a piece recently about the
effectiveness of U.S. sanctions depending upon their being echoed by
Europe, to cut Iran off from international banking. If Europe joined
the U.S. in this, Japan probably would follow. Europe might get
others to join. The piece was written by Stuart Eizenstat, who called
the U.S. sanctions a great victory for President Obama, just before
explaining that their effectiveness depends on other mercantile
countries going against their immediate financial interest.
DEFEATING POLITICAL ISLAM IN INDIA Moorthy Muthuswamy, author of Defeating Political Islam, usually writes about physics. He considers it more important to save his country and culture from jihad. His book describes recent decades of jihad on the Indian sub-continent. Dr. Muthuswamy sees a non-violent jihad being spread by India's opportunistic President and Prime Minister, Gandhi and Singh, are ignorant about national security and jihad. They set up the Ranganth Mishra Commission, prompted by Sonia Gandhi's advisers, Ahmed Patel. Mr. Patel is an extremist Muslim. Gandhi sought radical Muslim political support, to keep power, in return, promising them various preferences. Singh believes that resources should be set aside for Muslims in India. The Commission proposes setting aside 10% of certain jobs in India for Muslims. Mr. Muthuswamy asks why should India give preferences for Muslims, after Pakistan took a quarter of the country away from India, in 1947, for a Muslim state [now two states, including Bangladesh]. At first, Pakistan had a population, the author says, 30% of whom were non-Muslim families who had lived their for thousands of years. In the Bangladesh portion, it was 40%. Years of Muslim jihad has reduced the numbers to minuscule and 10%, respectively, but the ethnic cleansing goes on. Even in Kashmir, a province of India, Muslim terrorists are driving out Hindus and Sikhs. In every Muslim-majority area of South Asia, says Mr. Muthuswamy, Muslims drive out or exterminate non-Muslims. That is the reality India faces. At the time of partition, India had a Muslim population of 10%. That population grew faster than the Hindu population, so that now Muslims number 15%. The excuse for giving Muslims job preferences in India is that the Muslims are backward, and could not get the jobs on their own. Why are they backward? Muthuswamy attributes it to their religious outlook, which does not favor education. Muslims act the same in Pakistan, which embraces jihad instead of progress. Muslims have a choice in India, where they enjoy equal rights. If they are given important jobs by fiat, they would gain more power and would start to turn places of India into little Pakistan. The long-term effect would be extermination of non-Muslims. This is the non-violent jihad that is more dangerous than violent jihad, because it sets up conditions favorable to violence. Muslims have turned cities or areas of the West into little enclaves in which non-Muslims enter at risk of physical violence. Israel has a similar story. The Palestine Mandate was set up for Jewish national development, but was partitioned. The Muslims attempted to drive the Jews out. They still do. Nevertheless, Israel also has "affirmative action" for Muslims. That liberal extremism is suicidal. It is a mindless tolerance that strengthens the intolerant.
ISRAEL INDICTS GAZA VETS Various investigations having concluded, the IDF Advocate General has indicted some officers and enlisted men for their conduct during combat in Gaza. Most of the offenses were violations of military rules. Since combat ended, the IDF has examined about 150 incidents and the Military Police Criminal Investigations Division has investigated 50 cases. Most of the 30 incidents cited in the Goldstone Report already were known to the IDF and wer in various phases of investigation. In the current announcement, a lieutenant colonel was convicted for using a civilian during a military operation. Contrary to IDF rules, he had authorized a Gaza civilian to go to the adjoining house and urge the terrorist(s) in it to surrender. The colonel had been informed that the Arab asked permission to do this, to make sure than in a firefight, his house would not be destroyed. A staff sergeant was indicted for manslaughter. The dozens of Gazans and troops questioned gave irreconcilable accounts. Nevertheless, the sergeant, a marksman, was indicted for shooting without authorization someone walking with a group carrying a white flag. In a third case, a criminal investigation was ordered following a field investigation. The IDF bombed a terrorist's house inside of which were dozens of family members. In a fourth case, a captain is being disciplined for poor professional judgment in authorizing an attack on a terrorist. The terrorist had been firing rockets just outside a mosque. The attack on him did not, as complaints alleged, strike the mosque. However, shrapnel penetrated the mosque and injured people inside. The presence of civilians was not known. Since the mosque was not targeted, the IDF committed no war crime there. During the war, "Hamas operated from within civilian homes, schools, kindergartens, mosques, hospitals and UN facilities while the population in the Gaza Strip was made hostage." (IMRA, 7/6/10). What Hamas did are war crimes.
MOTHER THWARTS KIDNAPPER IN SAMARIA An Arab dressed like a yeshiva student, sought to hitch a ride near Eli, Samaria, on Wednesday. A woman driver pulled over. The man jerked open the door, and sprayed tear gas in her face. Hardly able to see, the woman turned off the engine and tried to retrieve her baby daughter from the rear seat. The terrorist tried to drive off, but he did not know the electronic code. He got out and ran away (Arutz-7, 7/7/10). A Hamas official recently said that his organization intended to kidnap more Israelis, in the hope of trading them for more imprisoned terrorists. A reader has been making sarcastic remarks about Israel starving the people of Gaza and the revised embargo being like half rations. He also made sarcastic remarks about Israel fearing that non-military items would be used against their "oppression." I recently reported that a journalist for the New York Times, which opposes the blockade of Gaza, nevertheless found the food shelves well stocked in Gaza stores. Nobody was starving. Making light of the extensive Hamas attempt to smuggle in weapons, explosives, and construction materials for bombs and bunkers is irresponsible. As for oppression, Israel does not rule Gaza, Hamas oppresses the people there and, by constantly bombarding Israel, Israelis. The sarcasm is misplaced, the notions behind it misguided, and the reader fabricates accusations against Israel no matter what the news.
ISRAELI MK: TELL OBAMA ABOUT P.A. TEXTBOOKS PREVENTING PEACE MK Zevulun Orlev, (The Jewish Home), who chairs the Knesset Education Committee urged PM Netanyahu to tell U.S. President Barack Obama about the incitement to hatred that fills PA textbooks. "When the curriculum is based on a sequence that starts with Holocaust denial, and goes on to teach that Israel's existence is not legitimate and that a violent struggle must be waged against Israel, there is not much chance of a Palestinian leader completing a peace process," Orlev said "If one's cultural milieu does not allow for discourse, it is no surprise that when former PM's Olmert and Barak each offered the Palestinians everything and anything, they still refused to make peace. Their educational framework doesn't allow them to consider peace and the recognition of Israel as a legitimate neighbor as options." Studies of P.A. textbooks found that they all call Israel illegitimate, deny any "connection between the Jewish people and this land," and indoctrinate in "hatred, violent struggle, jihad, shaheedism, and erasing Israel from school maps. These findings will make it impossible to achieve peace now and not ever and Obama has [be made] to know that." (Arutz-7, 7/7/10). At the White House press conference, Netanyahu could have related that finding, key to the lack of peace. He could have explained that pressures on Israel are misguided, because the lack of peace originates in that kind of Palestinian Arab intolerance and violence. Calls for Israel not to build houses simply assist the side of intolerance. Netanyahu would know how to put it in an irrefutable way, politely, and with praise for American tolerance and an explanation that jihad cannot be appeased and must be defeated. Obama would protest. Shown up as unequal to the task, he likely would lose more of his congressional support and his ability to subordinate the U.S. to his pro-Muslim foreign policy and his radical economic domestic policies that Netanyahu knows would financially ruin America. Instead, Netanyahu played the toady. He pretended all is well between Israel and Obama. Obama made just a tactical retreat from his excesses. He has not changed his mistaken view of jihad. Like the jihadists themselves, Obama is relentless in pursuing his ideology.
IRAN BLAMES U.S. WORLD CUP LOSS ON SANCTIONS Iran's Foreign Minister Mottaki blames the U.S. loss of the World Cup on its sanctions policy. Same for Britain and France. He did not explain why Iran did not even make it into the competition. Former Iranian team captain said that teams have to earn the right to compete. He said that Iran's absence from the competition was not missed (Arutz-7, 7/7/10). The problem with religious and political explanations for seemingly unrelated matters is inability to prove them.
IRAN OFFERS TO HLEP U.S. OIL SPILL, BUT CAN'T CONTAIN OWN 
Iran offered to help the U.S. contain its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, for humanitarian reasons, but the Persian Gulf state has a major oil spill of its own. Iran is not publicizing it, but its Naft Shahr oil field is on fire and spreading to nearby fields. Iran is losing about 9,000 barrels of oil a day. Iran seems unable to put the fire out. Its efforts are complicated by the collapse of 300 tons of structural steel and equipment. Firefighters are using the water supplies of three nearby towns and have had three artificial lakes constructed near the well. The country is suffering ecological as well as economic damage (Arutz-7, 7/7/10).
FRENCH COURT FINDS SLANDER SPREADING IN AL-DURA HOAX AGAINST ISRAEL Here are the events: (1) A photographer stages a hoax, making the IDF seem to have murdered an Arab boy, al-Dura. (2) A French journalist, Charles Enderlin airs the film on France 2 TV. (3) Monsieur Philippe Karsenty investigates privately, confirms the hoax, and accuses Enderlin of fraud. (4) M. Enderlin sues M. Karsenty for slander. Karsenty wins the verdict, which is based on the truth of his accusation that the alleged murder is a hoax. (5) Canal + airs its own program, making accusations impugning the integrity of Karsenty. (6) Karsenty sues Canal + for slander, and wins. The court's wording further confirms the hoax of the original photography. (7) The newspaper, L'Express, accuses Karsenty of being a hoaxer. (8) Karsenty fights back in court. The court found that the newspaper wrongly accused Karsenty, and therefore was "slanderous." However, the court did not award damages, because it felt that the falsity of the accusation was not deliberate. The ruling does show that the France 2 report was phony and that the Canal + documentary was defamatory and persuaded a reporter to repeat its defamation. Karsenty cites these actions by the newspaper reporter to show animosity, rather than sincerity: (a) That reporter tried to prevent Karsenty from having a press release; and (b) He signed a petition accusing Karsenty of being a "revisionist." The court ruling will stand Karsenty in good stead, as the Canal + appeal is coming up for its court date (Philippe Karsenty, 7/5) The original photographer showed only a small portion of his footage, and refused to let people see the rest. What he showed, however, was enough to see that : (1) The boy was out of the line of fire from the IDF, in combat with terrorists ; (2) No blood flowed from the boy ; (3) The boy moved after supposedly having been killed ; (4) No autopsy, no body, no evidence of anything. The PLO has staged other phony attacks, as earlier reports documented. The PLO can count on the biased media to take accusations by jihadists against Israel seriously without investigating. The media does not acknowledge that part of the ideology that permits jihad, authorizes lying for it as well as murdering civilians for it.
'FLOTILLA ACCOUNTS SHOW BOTH SIDES FUELED CLASH' 
"Flotilla Accounts Show Both Sides Fueled Clash" is the headline of a Wall St. Journal report on findings to date (Jay Solomon, 7/7/10, A10). They do not show that both sides acted so as to cause the combat. Only the Islamist side did. The Islamists brought aboard saws to fashion iron clubs useful in close quarters combat. They were sponsored by an organization that in addition to regular charity assists Hamas, a terrorist organization. The reporters mention that Hamas is called a terrorist organization by Israel. The reporters did not mention the fact that the U.S. State Dept., no friend of Israel, also finds Hamas terrorist. A passenger claimed that the initial Israeli troops opened fire even before they landed. That's it! That's it? They leave the helicopter with paint guns, but on the way down start firing? What on earth for? Their military code forbid this, and they would have nothing to gain. The code of the Islamists glorifies violence and dying in the effort. We saw the films of the initial troops being mobbed. If the commandos had started firing at the outset, many more Islamists would have fallen and fewer Israelis. I think that the Journal reporters are biased against Israel. The editorial and opinion writers are not.
U.S. AND ISRAEL ON NEGOTIATIONS WITH PALESTINIAN ARABS The U.S. said that Israel must commit to discussing basics of establishing an Arab state, as a "confidence-building" measure. Otherwise, Abbas could not persuade his people to accept direct negotiations with Israel. Israeli officials say, let the U.S. press Abbas to enter direct negotiations with demanding more preconditions. They point out that PM Netanyahu already has taken a great political risk in agreeing to a temporary construction freeze, to get Abbas to negotiate. U.S. demands over this have strained bilateral relations. The U.S. has praised Israel's relaxation of the blockade of Gaza. The meeting between the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister and Israel's Defense Minister is a sign that relations are thawing (Charles Levinson, Jay Solomon, Wall St. J., 7/6/10, A12). The U.S. still has not justified establishment of another Palestinian Arab state. Neither has it discussed the dangers of it. Nor has the U.S. explained how an agreement could possibly make peace with jihadists, whose primary goal is to conquer Israel. The U.S. also has not explained why Israel has to try to gain the confidence of terrorists who do not keep their word, as in violating all their agreements and truces. Does the U.S. not yet realize that there is no winning the confidence of jihadists filled with bigotry? Why is Israel dignifying the terrorist regime by negotiations with it that would strengthen its ability to help destroy Israel? U.S. praise for Israel's relaxation of the blockade is worthless. Israel was reacting weakly to pressure. The praise is temporary, and for doing the wrong thing for Israel. It is temporary, because Obama went too far in his antipathy toward Israel and other U.S. allies, so he is pretending the chill is over while he waits for the heat to dissipate. But the pressure almost always returns soon. The P.A-Israel meeting is no sign of a thaw. To think that the jihadists, who combine diplomacy with war, are thawing is naïve. Their meeting is a sign of Israeli appeasement. If Abbas cannot make agreements in behalf of his people, let his people find someone else. Israel is asked over and over again to make sacrifices "to strengthen Abbas." He should have been tried as a terrorist long ago.
U.S. AND ISRAEL ON NEGOTIATIONS WITH PALESTINIAN ARABS The U.S. said that Israel must commit to discussing basics of establishing an Arab state, as a "confidence-building" measure. Otherwise, Abbas could not persuade his people to accept direct negotiations with Israel. Israeli officials say, let the U.S. press Abbas to enter direct negotiations with demanding more preconditions. They point out that PM Netanyahu already has taken a great political risk in agreeing to a temporary construction freeze, to get Abbas to negotiate. U.S. demands over this have strained bilateral relations. The U.S. has praised Israel's relaxation of the blockade of Gaza. The meeting between the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister and Israel's Defense Minister is a sign that relations are thawing (Charles Levinson, Jay Solomon, Wall St. J., 7/6/10, A12). The U.S. still has not justified establishment of another Palestinian Arab state. Neither has it discussed the dangers of it. Nor has the U.S. explained how an agreement could possibly make peace with jihadists, whose primary goal is to conquer Israel. The U.S. also has not explained why Israel has to try to gain the confidence of terrorists who do not keep their word, as in violating all their agreements and truces. Does the U.S. not yet realize that there is no winning the confidence of jihadists filled with bigotry? Why is Israel dignifying the terrorist regime by negotiations with it that would strengthen its ability to help destroy Israel? U.S. praise for Israel's relaxation of the blockade is worthless. Israel was reacting weakly to pressure. The praise is temporary, and for doing the wrong thing for Israel. It is temporary, because Obama went too far in his antipathy toward Israel and other U.S. allies, so he is pretending the chill is over while he waits for the heat to dissipate. But the pressure almost always returns soon. The P.A-Israel meeting is no sign of a thaw. To think that the jihadists, who combine diplomacy with war, are thawing is naïve. Their meeting is a sign of Israeli appeasement. If Abbas cannot make agreements in behalf of his people, let his people find someone else. Israel is asked over and over again to make sacrifices "to strengthen Abbas." He should have been tried as a terrorist long ago.
OBAMA BRINGING FOREIGN MUSLIMS INTO NASA President Obama has ordered Charles Bolden, Administrator of NASA, to integrate predominantly Muslims countries into NASA and to praise their historical contributions to science and engineering. Some commentators have called this order childish, psychological silliness, and madness. Emanuel Winston warns, "Bringing Muslim Islamists into NASA exposes this sensitive industry of advanced technology for launching rockets into space. It would, of course, elevate their ability to build and launch missiles from short range to ICBM's (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) capable of reaching the U.S.." (Winston Mid East Report and Analysis, 7/6/10 from Fox News showing of Mr. Bolden on al-Jazeera TV.) If Obama were a patriotic American, sane, and mature, he would not share our military secrets with potential enemies. It is no excuse that he claims this is how to make friends with them. A targeted country cannot make friends with jihadists, just as one could not with Nazis and Communists. Either Obama does not understand jihad, the greatest foreign policy problem of our times, or he favors it. In modern times, Muslim countries and leaders made few contributions to science but contributed much to genocide (Holocaust, India, Pakistan, Sudan, Iraq, and attempts against Israel).
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
THE PATHOLOGY OF OUR TIME
Posted by Yaacov Levi, July 6, 2010. |
|
This was written by Professor Paul Eidelberg, an Internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. Contact him at list-owner@foundation1.org |
|
What are we to call a political system that allowed the Likud-led government of Ariel Sharon, whose coalition won 70 percent of the Knesset's membership in the January 2003 election to nullify that election later that year by adopting Labor's policy of "disengagement" — a policy rejected by an overwhelming majority of the public? What are we to call a political system when that same Likud government, having won 84 of 120 seats in the Knesset, nonetheless passed the disengagement bill by a vote of 67 to 45? Furthermore, what are we to call a political system that enables Israel's prime minister to betray 2,000 years of Jewish yearning and suffering by offering Israel's heartland, Judea and Samaria, to the successors of Yasser Arafat, the godfather of international terrorism? What are we to call a political system that allows Israel's prime minister to endorse an Arab-Islamic state in Judea and Samaria without Knesset or public debate, as Binyamin Netanyahu did on June 14, 2009? Where? At Bar-Ilan University. I call this political system, as Alexis de Tocqueville would have called it, a "democratically elected despotism." Yet, Israel's ruling elites — politicians and judges, academics and journalists — are ever boasting of Israel as a "democracy." Of course, that's the mantra what endows these elites with legitimacy and respectability. To awaken from 62 years of somnolence or conditioning, you only need to know a few things:
This democratically elected despotism will not be changed until the Knesset becomes an independent branch of government, and this will not happen until MKs are individually elected by, and individually accountable to, the voters in multi-district elections. Had this been the case in October 2004, when the issue of disengagement from Gaza came before the Knesset, hardly any member of the Likud Party would have betrayed the nation by voting for that bill. Now recall and ponder the following consequences:
Enough! A flawed political system and 120 MKs having a vested interest in preserving this system — all this in the name of "democracy," the idolatry or pathology of our time. Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
OUR VISIT WITH JONATHAN POLLARD
Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, July 6, 2010. | |
|
Background: Adi and Tzippi Ginsberg are one of a dozen or so couples who met and married as a result of their participation in the activities of the Committee to Bring Jonathan Pollard Home. They feel they owe a special debt of gratitude to Jonathan, not only for his service to the security of the State of Israel and for saving the lives of Israeli citizens, but also because he was their "matchmaker"! Recently, the Ginsbergs had the opportunity to express their thanks to Jonathan in person when they visited him in prison. This was a first meeting between Jonathan and the young couple and it was, for all concerned, very emotionally charged. The article below recounting the Ginsburgs' meeting with Jonathan is being released to mark Pollard's 9,000th day in captivity, on July 12th, 2010. The Committee to Bring Jonathan Pollard Home has planned a 3 day event at the Gesher Ha'Meitarim (Strings Bridge) Plaza in Jerusalem to raise awareness about Pollard's abandonment by the State of Israel and to garner support for his release. More information follows the article below. This below was written by Adi and Tzippi Ginsberg. | |
|
A number of weeks have passed since we returned from our visit with Jonathan Pollard at FCI Butner in North Carolina. Ever since we got back to Israel, we have been trying to write a description of our amazing visit with Jonathan but keep running into the same problem. No matter what we write, we continue to have the sense that words simply fall short of capturing the real essence of who Jonathan is, and the impact the visit had on us. This time, we are taking a different tack by writing an overview, instead of a detailed account. Even so, we write with trepidation. Jonathan is now 25 years into the unlimited life sentence that was imposed upon him for his service to security of the State of Israel. It may well be that we, or you, or anyone who reading this now, is among those who are alive today thanks to the vital security information that Jonathan shared with Israel — information which the United States withheld from Israel in contravention of an information-sharing agreement signed by both countries. Jonathan is desperately ill. He suffers from numerous ailments, endures excruciating pain, and has a number of serious medical issues which are not being attended to, even minimally. His substandard living conditions beggar the imagination. His cell is so narrow that he can barely stretch his arms without touching the walls on either side. He is forced to share this space with another inmate; a murderer, a drug dealer, or a pedophile. Every so often, his cellmates are released to go home, one after the other. Only Jonathan continues to languish in jail — all because he was not able to sit silently by at a time when terrorist plots and weapons of mass destruction loomed as a threat over the heads of the People of Israel. When you meet Jonathan — a man whose daily life of constant suffering and affliction we have described above only in the smallest part; a man who, by rights, ought to be immersed in anger and bitterness; and who, by now, should justifiably have given up any reason for living — you do not expect to meet the Jonathan Pollard that we met. Jonathan is not your ordinary prisoner. Nor is he an ordinary person in any way. Despite his deplorable physical condition, and in spite of the inferno he is forced to inhabit, he is remarkably cheerful, upbeat, witty and very compassionate. He has a wonderful sense of humor and an engaging personality. It was clear to us that Jonathan was in physical pain throughout the visit, from the way he repeatedly shifted in his chair, and from the way he unobtrusively tried to calm the pain by rubbing the afflicted area, but he never said a word about his pain, and he never let on how much he was suffering. Instead, he did everything he could to put us at our ease and to keep the conversation upbeat and encouraging. Although, we fear being misunderstood on this point, we must share the amazing realization that we had: Jonathan Pollard has been in prison for 25 years, but he has never been a prisoner! In his bearing, in his attitude and outlook, in his generosity of spirit and in his mental prowess and his intellectual acumen, Jonathan Pollard is a free man. In fact, we have never met anyone quite as free in spirit and in action. This is all the more startling when seen against the Hellish backdrop of the physical circumstances of his incarceration. There is no such thing as a good prison, or an easy prison. Prison, by definition, crushes free-will, destroys individuality, and forces a person to descend to the lowest common denominator in order to survive. A person in prison has no control over his life. A prisoner cannot make the ordinary every day choices which we take for granted, such as when to eat, what to eat, when to wake up and when to sleep, when to go to the bathroom or take a shower, what to own, where to keep our belongings, when or if to go to the doctor, what to buy, what to read, what kind of work to do, when to make phone calls, how many phone calls to make, or even how many minutes each phone call may last etc. All the things we take for granted as ordinary freedom of choice and of movement and of will, have been taken away from Jonathan for two and a half decades. An ordinary person would be marked by all the lack and privation Pollard has experienced. An ordinary person would be defined by his circumstances and the limitations in his life. But not Jonathan Pollard! And that is what is so amazing about him and so absolutely impossible to try to explain in writing. Were it not for the barbed wire, the electronic bars and sliding doors, and the video cameras following our every move in the visit room, reminding us that we were not in a Beit Café in Jerusalem, being with Jonathan almost made us forget where we were. Jonathan's smile is engaging. He is warm-hearted and funny. When amused, he chuckles and when he finds something funny he laughs heartily and without restraint. What touched us the most was watching how his face changed completely when he spoke of his wife, Esther. He did not have to tell us of his endless love for Esther, who has devoted her life to him. He lights up when he speaks of her and simply glows with pride and affection. For him, Esther is his whole world. My wife, Tzippi, pointed out with some amusement, how much Esther sounds like Jonathan; or is it how much Jonathan sounds like Esther? We have spent many hours and many occasions with Esther in Jerusalem, and were pleasantly surprised to find so much resemblance to Esther in Jonathan; or is it so much resemblance to Jonathan in Esther? How' ere it be, Esther and Jonathan share the same values, ideals, outlook, and even the same vocabulary. It was endearing to experience first-hand their closeness of mind and soul. The Pollards reflect a level of trust in HaShem and faith in all His ways that is beyond the grasp of most people. Jonathan wears his faith like a comfortable second skin, something so natural, it does not require a second thought. When Jonathan was incarcerated at USP Marion, where for 7 years he lived in solitary confinement in a dungeon cell 3 stories underground in the worst possible conditions, he was visited by a well-known Rabbi and author. The Rabbi asked him the question that all Jonathan's visitors like to ask him: "Are you angry at G-d for what He has done to you?" The Rabbi later wrote that Jonathan immediately responded, "Of course not! Why should I be angry at G-d? G-d did not do this to me, man did!" We asked Jonathan if, after all these years, he still feels that way. Once again, Jonathan responded without a seconds' hesitation. "Look," he said, "HaShem has been very gracious to me! In spite of the harsh conditions and the affliction, HaShem is with me. He sent me a wife while I was in a dungeon cell three stories underground! He sent me my beloved Rav, our adoptive father, Kavod HaRav Mordechai Eliyahu, ztvk"l". Jonathan's voice wavered a bit at the mention of his cherished Rav, whose recent death dealt a serious blow to the Pollard couple. Jonathan continued, "The bad has been horrible, but the good has been incredible! In the depths of Gehinom, Hashem has sent me my closest friends and confidants, and a slew of honest G-d fearing supporters and activists — the best of the best — and He even sent you and Tzippi to me! The evil that has been done to me has been perpetrated by man exercising his own free will, not HaShem. All the good that has been done to me is only from HaShem. In this hell-hole of an existence, it is HaShem who sustains me and keeps me alive, in spite of all odds. Ultimately it is HaShem, in spite of all the rest, who will set me and Esther free." We asked him what he meant by "set Esther free". He said, "Esther and I, because we share our lives so thoroughly, live a very peculiar existence. Because of Esther, I am partially in prison and partially free; and because of me, Esther is partially free and partially in prison too. My release, B"H, will set both of us free." After the visit, the NSA monitor who flew in from Washington to audit the visit shared his own thoughts about the "dynamic duo", Esther and Jonathan. He has monitored Jonathan's visits for the last 10 years or so, and is thoroughly familiar with the Pollard couple. He told us that he believes that were it not for Esther, the love of Jonathan's life, it is not likely that he would have survived this long. "Esther is the air that he breathes! She is the blood in his veins!" is how he put it. Even after 25 years of affliction and deprivation, we met a humble and elegant man, a most articulate man, who almost never said a word about himself. He did speak at length and with great animation of the "other love of his life" — the Land and People of Israel. He said that his beloved Rav, HaRav Mordechai Eliyahu, ztvk"l had pointed out to him that the two great loves in his life share the same initials "E. Y." (Aleph, Yod); his wife, (E)sther (Y)ocheved and (E)retz (Y)israel, the land of Israel. This, said the Rav zt"l, who was a great Mekubal, is no coincidence! The fate of the People of Israel and the safety of the Land of Israel disturb Jonathan's peace more than any other subject. From the depths of Gehinom, deep inside the pit, he prays for us, even for those who forget to pray for him. Even now, weeks after the visit, we are still not able to understand or to explain Jonathan's freedom of spirit, his strength of belief, his endless hope, and his ability to be so full of light in an atmosphere so totally immersed in darkness. In spite of it all, he is a man of great loving-kindness and grace. Similarly, we still have not yet found a way to write a blow by blow description of the visit that doesn't diminish what an amazing person our brother Jonathan is. It hurts to know that this very, very precious soul has been buried alive in prison for so many years, and is still waiting for us to dig him out. During the course of our conversation, Jonathan asked me about my goals for the future and I responded in detail. He turned to my wife and said, "Tzippi, all of Adi's dreams depend on you! Your mission is to create the kind of loving, safe, secure, Jewish home that Adi needs so that he can have the peace of mind and the focus he needs to be able to devote his full heart and soul to fulfilling these lofty goals!" Tzippi, deeply touched, burst into tears. Smiling through her tears, she nodded in agreement. Then Jonathan turned to me, and said, "And your job, Adi, is to honor and cherish the precious gift that HaShem gave you in your wife, Tzippi!" "Adi," he admonished me, "never forget, no matter what else you may do in your life, no matter what you may accomplish, without her, you are nothing!" His words, spoken from the heart, entered our hearts and touched us deeply. Another thing which Jonathan said, totally blew us away. It was when we spoke with him about Shlomit Peretz, the young widow of Golani Commander Eliraz Peretz, who was killed in Gaza on the eve of last Passover. Not only did Shlomit have to deal with the harsh blow that the death of her husband dealt her, but also with the news that their house (home to her four little orphans) was slated for destruction by the Government. When the Knesset Speaker came to pay her a condolence call, she did not use the opportunity to speak to him about herself or about saving her house. The only thing that she had to say to the Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin was a plea for Jonathan Pollard: "One of the values that was very strong with Eliraz is that the wounded are not to be abandoned in the field," she told Rivlin. "I want to point out to you something about this value of not abandoning the wounded," she went on. "The State of Israel has someone who has been left wounded in the field for 25 years [Jonathan Pollard] and our hearts are torn. If he could be brought home, that would be a sort of consolation for us. I would see in that a continuation of Eliraz's path, that despite the fact that Eliraz is no longer with us physically — the things that he wanted to happen and in which he believed will be fulfilled." Prior to our visit we had heard (from Esther) Jonathan's response to Shlomit Peretz's bravery. Jonathan had said he was humbled and amazed by the moral strength and courage of a woman, newly-widowed, who at such a difficult time, asked nothing for herself, but instead used the opportunity to do something to promote the values that her late husband, Eliraz, had lived and died for. But now, as we were speaking, Jonathan added a few words that hit us like a ton of bricks. He said, "You know, sometimes I am really surprised to discover that there are still people who remember me..." Jonathan's words tore our hearts out! How could it be that we, as a nation, have failed so miserably to convey our caring and concern for this precious soul, who sacrificed his life and his freedom for us? How can we face ourselves knowing that we allowed him to feel so alone, so forgotten? Friends, in practical terms, Jonathan's release depends on the Government of Israel ending the abandonment and taking responsibility by implementing intensive action to return Jonathan home. But the responsibility for how we relate to Jonathan is ours and ours alone! If after 25 years, Jonathan does not feel that there is an entire nation waiting for him over there, beyond the prison walls; a nation praying for him, doing everything it can, and waiting expectantly, impatiently for him, a nation that won't give up on him until he is home — if Jonathan is still surprised to learn that someone here cares about him — then we have to ask ourselves what this says about us. What is more, if we were really concerned about the one who has paid and is paying such a heavy price for caring about us, then we would arouse ourselves to figure out the most effective way to cry out as one, demanding his release. If we would only show that we really care, that Jonathan really matters, the opportunity would arise and a solution can be found, and Jonathan's life saved. One thing is certain, if Jonathan were to begin receiving thousands of letters every week, from his concerned brothers and sisters in Israel, who write to tell him about the efforts that they are making for his release, he would no longer be so surprised that anyone remembers him. He would know it for certain. Then perhaps we may, through our efforts, transform ourselves into a nation deserving of having this great man home with us. The worst moment of our visit arrived when we had to say good-bye to Jonathan. If Jonathan were an ordinary man and an ordinary Jew, we would still be very, very sad to leave him there. How much sadder we were to turn our backs and have to walk away from a man who is a national treasure, a man who could make such a difference at home. Among other things, Jonathan has been working for years on projects for the creation of alternate sources of energy. He has plans and ideas to help Israel become self-sufficient in the areas of energy production and water purification and recycling. His greatest dream is to help Israel end its dependence on foreign sources of energy. The visit room guard signaled, "time up" and we gathered up our belongings and our hearts, ready to leave. We were devastated by the thought of Jonathan returning to his tiny cell and his life in hell, but there was nothing we could do. We hugged him and said our good-byes, pledging to meet again soon in Jerusalem. With heavy, heavy hearts, we wiped the tears from our eyes and followed the NSA monitor out through the door marked "Exit". When will it be Jonathan's turn to walk through that door? J4JP Addendum: 1) J4JP and the Committee to Bring Jonathan Pollard Home announces a 3 day Vigil for Jonathan Pollard, starting July 12th On July 12th, Jonathan Pollard marks 9,000 days as Prisoner of Zion in America. Join the 3 day Vigil to Save Jonathan Pollard: July 12th, 13th and 14th — all day and night, every day at Gesher Ha'Meitarim ("Bridge of Strings") Plaza, Jerusalem. For more information click here. 2) Please continue to call the White House daily! CALL THE WHITE HOUSE NOW: Tel: 202-456-1414 Tell the President that releasing Jonathan Pollard would be the consummate act of friendship towards the People of Israel. For more information, click here. 3) Now more than ever, write to Jonathan Pollard! For information, address and instructions, click here.
See Also: Video: "The Nightmare" by Boxerbros Productions (2 minutes)
Video: "The Message" by Boxerbros Productions (2.5 minutes)
Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to
justice4jp@gmail.com
|
|
AUSTRALIA & BRITISH GOVS. STAND IN FEAR OF HIZB UT-TAHRIR
Posted by Susana K-M, July 6, 2010. |
|
This is from The Australian and was entitled "Jihadist group a threat to us all." |
|
Hizb ut-Tahrir, which held its controversial rally in Sydney on Sunday, is not just yet another radical Islamist group. It is one of the most manipulative and effective recruitment fronts for the Islamic jihad, particularly among the educated Muslim young. It is precisely because its spokesmen do not appear to be wild-eyed fanatics but are usually highly intelligent and even intellectual that it is so appealing and therefore so dangerous. But because it takes such care to conceal its links to terror, governments in Australia and Britain, where it has managed to establish a significant and highly troubling presence, find it difficult to deal with it. Liberal societies are reluctant to ban any organisation unless it can be proved to be connected to terrorism or violence. Since neither Australia nor Britain says it has found any such links, they allow HT to continue to operate while monitoring its activities. Hence Sunday's meeting in Sydney. But HT members in other countries have been involved in terrorism, and whatever its protestations to the contrary, the organisation actively promotes and encourages violence. And since it regards itself as a global movement that does not recognise national boundaries, the comforting fiction that it presents no threat to Australia is particularly otiose. In Russia, HT has been banned since 2003, when the leaders of its Moscow cell were arrested in possession of plastic explosives, grenades, TNT and detonators. In August 2005, nine members of HT in Russia were convicted of illegal possession of weapons and incitement to racial and religious hatred. In August 2002, HT in Denmark reportedly offered the equivalent of €25,000 to anyone who killed a prominent Danish Jew, producing a hit list of between 15 and 25 leading members of Denmark's Jewish community. The leader of HT in Denmark, Fadi Ahmad Abdel Latif, was convicted of incitement to racial hatred for distributing a leaflet urging people to 'kill them, kill the Jews wherever you find them'. And last year HT was banned in Bangladesh after the government said it feared the organisation posed 'a threat to peaceful life'. Not only does HT explicitly promote violence in Israel, Afghanistan and Iraq, but it calls on Muslims everywhere to engage in violent jihad. HT is dedicated to the creation of a single Islamic state, or caliphate, that 'will reach the whole world and the rule of the Muslims will reach as far as the day and night'. It believes there is a timeless conflict that governs relations between Muslims and 'unbelievers', a conflict it encourages. On the Harry's Place website recently, 'Raziq', a former HT member, wrote that HT's efforts in Britain are primarily aimed at disrupting the civic and political integration of British Muslims: 'They want Muslims to disown citizenship in their hearts, to reject government and all democratic institutions in their minds ... and to encourage them to work semi-secretly for the return of a lost empire across a massive land base.' HT makes clear in its literature that peaceful means are not enough to win this conflict and that Muslims are allowed to launch aggressive wars against non-Muslims. Its publications say Islamic religious texts all command Muslims to initiate fighting against disbelievers, 'even if they do not initiate [it] against us'. It even justifies the killing of Muslims who do not want to live by these rules. 'He who does not rule by Islam and rules by a kufr [non-Muslim] system should either retract or be killed.' It also calls on Muslims to fight Jews everywhere, and engages in vicious anti-Jew invective. Last month, HT in Bangladesh issued a press release to advertise a demonstration about the Gaza flotilla which said: 'O Muslim armies! Teach the Jews a lesson after which they will need no further lessons. March forth to fight them, eradicate their entity and purify the earth of their filth.' Its invective radicalises Muslims everywhere to the cause of extremism and jihadi violence. In Britain, it has had a particularly seismic effect on campus, where its combination of intellectualism, save-the-world idealism and secret-society comradeship has proved devastatingly effective in recruiting even highly westernised students to the jihad. Britain's National Union of Students has twice banned HT — in 1994-95 and again in 2004 — holding it 'responsible for supporting terrorism and publishing material that incites racial hatred'. The result has been merely that HT has repeatedly changed its name to continue to spread its message on campus. But the students union's attempt to stop HT has not been echoed by the British government, although the new Prime Minister, David Cameron, promised in opposition to ban it. Not only has the government refused until now to proscribe it, but it sometimes inadvertently even channelled public funds to it through front organisations. And it has taken no legal action against it, despite calls by British Jewish leaders for HT to be prosecuted after it repeatedly called on its website for the killing of Jews and the annihilation of Israel. Several former HT members in Britain have testified to the extraordinary effectiveness of HT's manipulative mind games on impressionable Muslim youths, and have been in the forefront of arguing that the British government's refusal to ban it has been a disaster. Shiraz Maher, who left HT after the London tube and bus bombings in 2005, says there is a real danger in allowing the group to operate freely, as its words may have inspired terrorist activity. One of Britain's first suicide bombers, Omar Sharif, was partially radicalised by HT activists at King's College, London. Maher also notes that HT targets Britain's many foreign Muslim students in order to project the party's message back into the Muslim world, where it is severely curbed by local governments. That's why public meetings such as the one in Sydney are so important to HT, not just to radicalise Australian Muslims but to boost the organisation's ability to recruit to the cause in countries that have banned it because they are only too well aware of the lethal threat it poses. Democratic countries such as Britain and Australia are rightly very reluctant to clamp down on political expression. But the decision that nothing can be done to ban HT's 'conveyor belt to terror' is disastrously naive. Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
THE GOD QUESTION
Posted by Yaacov Levi, July 6, 2010. |
|
This was written by Professor Paul Eidelberg an Internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. Contact him at list-owner@foundation1.org |
|
As serious thinkers have understood, all serious issues ultimately involve the "God question." Thus, in the clash between Islam and the West, the serious student sees that whereas Islam has an erroneous conception of God, the West has simply abandoned — what it never fully understood — the Hebraic conception of God. Confining myself to the former: Islam is theologically erroneous because it is based on the primacy of will in contradistinction to the primacy of reason. Islam's deity entails absolute determinism or predestination, which precludes reason, creativity, and individual responsibility — in the absence of which Islam has become a stagnant cult of murderous hatred. Hence, the conflict between Islam and the West is fundamentally a theological issue. To understand the malaise of Islam, I am happy to recommend an extraordinary book by a former student of mine, Robert R. Reilly. Entitled The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis (ISI Books, 2010), this most timely book provides a new understanding of Islam, more profound, more illuminating, and of more practical significance than those of some of the most eminent scholars of Islam. The Closing of the Muslim Mind is must reading for policy-makers and their advisers on Islamic affairs — and of course for educators in general. This refreshingly new study of Islam — which explains the irrationality that induces Islamists to love death more than life — addresses the crisis of our time. We need to understand this crisis in theological terms. To overcome this crisis, we must confront the "God question." This we must do if Israel and America are to resume their historical function as the teachers and guardians of Western civilization. I urge readers of this seminal work to bring it to the attention of Representatives and Senators, academics and journalists, rabbis and clergymen. Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
NYTIMES GOES FROM ANTI-ISRAEL BIAS TO AN ANTI-ISRAEL BASHER
Posted by American, July 6, 2010. |
|
This below appeared as a letter July 4, 2010 in NewYorkTimes. Emails: letters@nytimes.com, editorial@nytimes.com. |
|
To the New York Times It has been a long time since I took a peek in that paper, I apologize for being forced into it when meeting 2 relatives in a starbucks cafe, their flight was delayed, so the NYTimes gained my attention, regrettably. Here are glimpses of the "quality" newspaper: 1) Frontpage of the ("Jewish?") New York Times talks about strained relations between US-Israel, note, A) Mark Landler does not talk about frictions between Obama's administration and the Netanyahu's (A.K.A. naming the problem), but 'between US & Israel.' B) It titles the flotilla ship (you know, that radical-Islamists IHH led boat that attacked violently the Israeli security and called: "Kill the Jews for Allah!" and "Go back to Auschwitz! prior to that), no more and no less but: "humanitarian aid." 2) Then, in the section: "Inside the Times" (p. 3, a summary of what awaits the reader...) I notice briefly that Nicholas D. Kristof writes something... oh, wait where do I remember that name from? Of course, that's the guy that wrote about the Arab slavery & genocide on Africans in Darfur but never had the courage to name it what it is: Arab racism, writing and writing so much material about that calamity, yet always beating around the bushes (Mr. Honigman has criticized him, a lot, google it up). So, Am I interested in anything Mr. Kristof has to say? not really. [if he can't "see" the Arabs committing crimes against humanity in Africa, why would he see it in Arab-Palestine?] I didn't even bother to look "inside" his article that "criticizes" Israel's blockade over (Hamas' controlled) Gaza. 3) Obituaries... (p. 19) Do you ever think, the bias-virus can spread there as well, sure enough in the never impartial Ny Times, anything is possible. Do you have any idea who the "chosen one" was this week? believe it or not, the planner of the infamous anti-Israel massacre by Arab-Muslim "Palestinians" in 1972, the Munich murderous cold blooded attack on Israel's sport team [Why? "freedom fighters" of course]. So, Do you also know who provided the material for the "quality paper," it was an Arab in Ramallah, W.B [Khaled Abu Aker — whatever] "reporting..." about how "great of a father he was," [these loveable neutral guys always "report," never posting opinions of course, not surprisingly the 'Pallywood' term pops up suddenly) aren't you intrigued as me to know how "wonderful" this low life murderer was? In any case, all in all, a typical "dry" Sunday (wait until it gets interesting in Israel "Palestine"), and anti-Israel rant is all over it, and I barely had a chance to really 'read' the times. My family members appeared, thank you very much. I think I'll pass, (Ma'am) Can I have 2 cappuccinos, to go, please? I still notice how racist Arabists and Nazi KKK/supremacists call that paper "jewish," not sure why, for all it is, it's one staunch Arabist paper, certainly no better than the BBC, who openly admitted a few years back of being biased against Christianity & against Israel. I take it back, What a stupid question to wonder about haters' "facts?" PS The date above says, July — 2010, but the date is irrelevant, the sample is certainly a pathetic routine. 1) Sad note: Whatever happened to the prestigious newspaper, the last 10-15 Years or so...? 2) Reality note: I guess there's a real logic behind the huge loss of subscription, on top of deep disapppointing "opinions," its bias has already reached a dreadful boring (not boiling) point — yawn! 3) Happy note: I am so glad that I do not have a habit to read that quality-less paper. Contact American at american1627@yahoo.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
Posted by Arlene Kushner, July 6, 2010. |
|
So we waited patiently — or impatiently, as the case may be — to hear what would come out of the Obama-Netanyahu meeting today. We knew going in that it was going to be cordial: that was a given because Obama is trying to repair damage he's done with his hostile attitude towards Israel. Look how happy they appear to be as the photographers' shutters click: 
But what did they actually SAY to each other? Well, they met in the oval office for just under two hours and then had a "joint press availability" with a press pool. Not quite a full-blown press conference. Netanyahu spoke about how any suggestion that the relationship between the two nations was failing was "flat wrong." And Obama said that Netanyahu had convinced him that he "wants peace" and is serious about moving forward to direct negotiations with the PA. My next question, then, is precisely what did Netanyahu do to "convince" the president? This is what we don't know. Whatever it was, it was behind closed doors. The president said a bit more: He expressed pleasure at the new rules established by Israel for goods permitted into Gaza via the land crossings (and I'll get to that below). And there was mention of Iran sanctions. ~~~~~~~~~~ The president also declared that "the US would never ask Israel to undermine its security." I consider this the biggest joke of all. The US asks this of us all the time, in a dozen different ways. ~~~~~~~~~~ When questioned as to whether he would like Netanyahu to extend the freeze on construction in Judea and Samaria, he avoided a direct answer and segued into a comment about how he hopes direct negotiations will begin before the freeze ends in late September. So, my final question here: Is there some linkage between an extension of the freeze and progress made in the talks by late September? ~~~~~~~~~~ The two heads of state then moved on to a (fully kosher) working lunch, also behind closed doors. No further meeting of the two leaders with the press was scheduled. ~~~~~~~~~~ Here in Israel, the issue of the freeze has been a major focus of concern. As Netanyahu was preparing to take off for the US yesterday, the faction chairmen of Likud, Yisrael Beitenu, Shas, UTJ, Habayit Hayehudi (all part of the coalition) and National Union (which is not) signed a joint declaration that they "strenuously oppose an extension of the building freeze past 18 Tishrei, September 26. "Ending the freeze at the date that was set is the minimum needed for keeping Israel an independent state and for safeguarding its vital interests. We will use all of the parliamentary tools at our disposal and the full extent of our political influence so that this commitment is honored and implemented." Additionally, there was talk from Habayit Yehudi of quitting the coalition if the freeze was extended. And Foreign Minister Leiberman has made a direct statement about our not paying for direct talks with an additional freeze. ~~~~~~~~~~ On the flip side, an attempt to push through legislation that would have required Knesset approval for any additional freeze after September was just defeated. I was surprised, as were many — it had looked like a pretty sure thing at one point. The prime minister had pushed hard for its defeat. His position was that this would have motivated Obama to lean even harder on him with regard to a freeze. But I'm not sure I buy that: it might have provided Netanyahu with the perfect out — the ability to advance a freeze would no longer have been in his hands. His position did not inspire a great deal of confidence as to his readiness to hold tight on resuming construction. But this does not necessarily mean that he did cave; he may have simply wanted the latitude to do bargaining on the issue. ~~~~~~~~~~ A rumor was floated in the past couple of days with regard to a proposal that Netanyahu might offer Obama for a partial freeze: Obama would "hint" at the fact that Israel would retain major settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria, in line with the letter sent by (then) President Bush to (then) PM Sharon. The letter stated: "It is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. The sentiments expressed in this letter were endorsed by both houses of Congress, and there is solid legal opinion in at least some quarters that this is a binding executive agreement. Enormous tension developed between Israel and Obama in the early days of his administration over this. Obama — as well as his mouthpiece Secretary of State Clinton — denied that there was an obligation to honor what was perceived by Israel to be a commitment. Obama was plugging for Israel to move back to the '67 line, per PA demands. You might like to see the JINSA Report (#1003) on this:
~~~~~~~~~~ At any rate, the proposal was that in return for a nod in the direction of this letter by Obama, Netanyahu would agree to freeze construction in all communities in Judea and Samaria outside of the major settlement blocs. We may never know if such a proposal was advanced. We simply know that to this point there has been no nod from Obama (which would have to be public), and no apparent reciprocal commitment from Netanyahu. What particularly disturbed me with regard to how this proposal was structured in news reports is that it called for a "hint" from Obama. A hint? How easy to backtrack on a hint, to say that he was misunderstood. Remember the statement by presidential candidate Obama, who declared to AIPAC that Jerusalem must be undivided (which is code for remaining under Israeli sovereignty), only to explain a day or two later that he was misunderstood — that what he meant was that the Israeli and Palestinian portions of Jerusalem should be open to each other. With this man, very explicit clarifications are necessary. ~~~~~~~~~~ As to the new rules for goods into Gaza: What Israel has done now is to shift from an official list of what can go in, to an official list of what may not be permitted in — items that might be used for building weapons, etc. A big deal has been made about all of the things that Israel had prevented from going in — things like potato chips. The point ostensibly being that Israeli officials were mean and hard-hearted and arbitrary. But no. Potato chips weren't permitted in because of how the previous list was fashioned. Officials had drawn up a list of what people reasonably needed: meat, fish, dairy products, legumes, basic hygiene items, flour, cooking oil, fresh produce, etc. etc. No one ever saw fit to include potato chips as a reasonable basic need. I would bet potato chips were never discussed. Now they can be brought in. This new approach is what Obama was praising. ~~~~~~~~~~ So where are we? My take, based on what I'm seeing and what I understand about how Netanyahu functions: He is making the case that he really, really wants to proceed with seriousness in peace talks, and that this is only possible in face-to-face talks. This, hopefully, puts the onus on the PA: he is representing himself as the party more eager to proceed. While he is doing this, he knows, knows full well, that Abbas will find reasons not to proceed, just as he will never accept any deal that Israel would offer. But all the while Israel's desire to proceed must be apparent to the world, and most particularly to the president of the United States. ~~~~~~~~~~ Right now Abbas is saying that there has been no progress in the proximity talks. The PA, actually, expressed bewilderment at the recent US statement that there had been considerable progress. And, says Abbas, until there is progress (which he defines, at least in part, as an Israeli acknowledgement of the PA borders, up front), there will be no movement to face-to-face. Then comes the next part of the PA plan. They are still making the assumption that they don't have to bargain and can use diplomatic means to get what they want, on the way to destroying Israel. The PA declaration is that if there is no progress by September, then they will revert to the Saudi Peace Plan (otherwise known as a plan for destroying Israel), and take this to the UN Security Council and ask the Council to recognize a Palestinian state on all the land beyond the Green Line. I still have reservations as to how serious this is, and how much idle threat. I also have doubts as to whether, according to international law, it is even possible for the Security Council to "recognize" a state. There is no precedent for this. What is more, this would require overturning of earlier Security Council resolutions that call very specifically for a setting of borders via negotiations. So it is all a bit dubious. Netanyahu's plan, then, would seem to be two-fold. First, to be able to strongly make the case that we were ready to proceed with those negotiations, as required by earlier resolutions. This would seriously call into question the legal propriety of seeking to overturn them. And then, to be on sufficiently solid terms with Obama so that a US veto in the Security Council on this would be a sure thing. ~~~~~~~~~~ I hasten to assure one and all that I am not advocating a caving to Obama's demands by Israel so that we can keep him happy. Never! I advocate strength and a solid expression of our sovereignty. I am speaking here of what may be Netanyahu's approach. He's walking a fine line. And as he typically tries to please both sides, his policies lack a certain clarity. A position of clarity would be one in which our prime minister comes to the White House armed with well documented evidence of why the PA cannot be trusted: of how it supports terrorism and promotes incitement. MK Zevulun Orlev (Habayit HaYehudi), who is chair of the Knesset Education Committee, suggested, for example, putting PA textbooks, rife with incitement, on the president's desk. And then, following this, a position of clarity would require a statement about Israeli rights, coupled with a refusal to deal with the PA as a legitimate and trustworthy negotiating partner. But this will never be Netanyahu's style. ~~~~~~~~~~ Not for a moment do I minimize the difficulty of being the Israeli prime minister today. I will not make specific criticisms of Netanyahu now. Whatever the speculation, I do not know yet what went on behind those closed doors. It's possible that, mindful of domestic demands and the risk of a crumbling coalition, he held strong. A great deal will yet emerge both via leaks, and actions that follow from whatever may have been agreed upon. Then it will be time for further comment.
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il
and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
|
|
NETANYAHU WEAKENS ISRAELI BARGAINING POSITION WITH U.S. ON JUDEA-SAMARIA
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 6, 2010. |
|
ISRAEL-U.S.-P.A. NEGOTIATIONS Although the article is about the blockade of Gaza, its interesting part, as usual for the New York Times, is its background comment. Here are two comments about the negotiations the U.S. undertakes between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. (1) A National Security Council adviser, Daniel Shapiro, says that in these weeks of negotiations, "the gaps have been narrowed." (2) The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) denies much was achieved except public relations. P.A. chief negotiator Saeb Erekat advises not expecting much (Isabel Kershner, 7/6/10, A12). The U.S. never defines the "gap" nor identifies who narrowed it and how. Negotiators really should not discuss the process, just the results. But by not making clear what is going on, they imply what is not going on. To Americans, narrowing a gap means reaching more mutual understanding. But that is not what is happening. To the Muslim Arabs, the Arab-Israel conflict is jihad, a conflict is to the death. The result is all or nothing. Jihad is bent on conquest, not conflict management nor anger management. It does not seek mutual understanding. It seeks total dominance. Some Muslims treat with the enemy. They make temporary compromises until they can renew the original demands or make further demands. Their list of demands is open-ended, until attaining global dominance. To those Muslims, diplomacy is war by other means. Other Muslims refuse to sully their honor by treating with the enemy, especially now that the radical Muslim view of Jews has become so racist as to consider Jews sub-human, just as the Nazis did. The West usually misunderstands as a great return to normalcy, when some Muslim Arabs seem to recognize or work with Israel. Question is, what are they working for, and how permanent is the recognition. Arab states have withdrawn diplomatic recognition. With that in mind, you can understand that when the U.S. hints that the "gaps have been narrowed," it implies that Israel has made concessions to the Arabs. Strengthening Arabs bent on war and on conquest, is not productive. The Arab side customarily hedges on expectations, though its people often expect too much from an agreement. The Arab side routinely takes a pessimistic stand, in line with its constant complaints. They seek sympathy from naïve Westerners, who suppose that when people allege grievances, they must have legitimate grievances. The only grievance that the Muslim Arabs really have is that they feel that after having conquered the area long ago, its subsequent liberation from their control is an affront to Islam. ISRAEL LISTS ITEMS NOT ALLOWED INTO GAZA Here are the items still barred from Gaza, except under the conditions stated: List no. 1: Items Subject to Specific Permission 1. Arms and Munitions: forbidden transfer under all circumstances across Israel's frontiers without specific permits — as defined in the Control of Exports Security Order (Arms and Munitions) 5768-2008, and in the Control of Exports Security Order (Missile Equipment) 5768-2008. 2. Dual Use goods and items: liable to be used, side-by-side with their civilian purposes, for the development, production, installation or enhancement of military capabilities and terrorist capacities. This list comprises: Items listed under the Wassenaar Arrangement: As specified in the updated (2008) "Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Arms and Dual Use Goods and Technologies — List of Dual Use Goods and Technologies and Munitions List." Items whose entry into the PA Areas is controlled based on Israeli legislation: i.e. materials and equipment liable to be used for terror attacks and technology that could be used by terrorists — as defined in the Control of Exports Security Order (Controlled Dual Use Equipment Transferred to the PA Areas) 5768-2008 and in Orders of the OC Central Command. These lists include, in detail, a range of chemicals used in the production of explosives (including certain fertilizers); specific types of metal profiles; ball bearings; lathes and their parts; composite materials; hunting knives and machetes; optical equipment, such as lasers and night vision goggles; certain navigation aides; diving equipment; parachutes, gliders and other non-motorized airborne vehicles; flares and fireworks; avionics and flight control equipment; missile related computer technologies; rock drills and equipment drawing water from excavated sites. Items not necessarily included in the lists above but whose entry into Gaza is controlled, as detailed below: i. Items and chemicals which could be used in the production of high trajectory weapons (rockets and mortars) by Hamas and other terror groups in Gaza — Fertilizers or other mixtures — specifically containing KCl at more than 5%; Epoxy and Vinyl Ester resins; Hardeners for Epoxy Resins containing Amides or Amines; Accelerators for Vinyl Esters; HTPB; Water purification solutions at concentrations higher than 11%. ii. Items used as raw materials for improving protection for terror activists - Fibers or woven fabrics containing Carbon or Glass variants. iii. Vessels. List No. 2: Construction Items and Materials to be Allowed Entry into Gaza only for PA-authorized Projects Implemented by the International Community While such items are liable to be used for Hamas military purposes (building bunkers, fortifying positions and digging tunnels) Israel will permit their entry into Gaza so as to facilitate construction projects in Gaza — authorized by the PA and implemented and monitored by the international community. This list includes: Portland cement and lime (in bulk, bags or barrels) Natural and Quarry aggregates and all varieties of gravel Ready concrete Precast concrete elements and products Steel elements and/or construction products Iron for foundations and columns, at any diameter (including wielded steel nets) Steel cables of any width Forms for construction elements (plastics or galvanized iron) Industrialized forms for casting concrete Plastic or composite beams more than 4 mm thick Thermal isolation materials and products Blocs (at any width) — Concrete; Silicate; Ytong or its equivalent; or gypsum Materials and products for sealing structures Asphalt and its components (Bitumen, emulsion) in aggregate or packaged Steel elements or framing products for construction Cast concrete elements and products for drainage over 1 m in diameter Precast units and sea-borne containers Vehicles, excluding private cars and including 4X4 vehicles and other categories of motor vehicles liable to be used in terror activities Lumber beams and boards more than 2 cm thick, (liable to be used in "offensive" tunneling aimed at penetrating Israeli territory), unless incorporated in finished products Specific procedures, on a case by case basis, will be established so as to permit the transfer of such lumber for other purposes in Gaza (IMRA, 7/5/10). NETANYAHU WEAKENS ISRAELI BARGAINING POSITION WITH U.S. ON JUDEA-SAMARIA PM Netanyahu has weakened Israel's bargaining position with the U.S., on Judea-Samaria. A bill was proposed giving the Knesset power to overturn any future building freeze imposed by the Cabinet. The Likud Central Committee endorsed the bill, and affirmed its support for development of all parts of the State of Israel and in the disputed parts of the Land of Israel outside the State. The Cabinet, however, disapproved the bill by 20:10. The Knesset Ministerial Committee on Legislation also voted down the bill. Although Netanyahu admitted that the existing building freeze has not led to direct peace negotiations, he fought the bill down. He heads into his meeting, today, Tuesday, without being able to cite tied hands, when President Obama is expected to demand that Netanyahu extend what was supposed to be a temporary construction freeze. Netanyahu argued that passage of the bill would increase pressure U.S. pressure on Israel. To the contrary, he has just shown Obama that his government cannot get on record a rejection of a freeze's continuation. The only apparent purpose of his opposing the bill was to keep open the possibility of extending the freeze. Usually, when Netanyahu tries resisting U.S. pressure, he cites not that He wants to do what is right for his people, but that his party won't let him. In this case, he fought down his party. Netanyahu is reputedly weak about yielding to pressure by the U.S.. The results contradict the people's votes for national security. The Left applauded Netanyahu for the results. Apparently, the Left does not care for rule by the people but by its ideology and by outside pressure (IMRA, 7/4/10, with analysis by Dr. Aaron Lerner, head of IMRA). Still the mis-impression persists that Israel's government is right-wing. It suits anti-Israelis to keep up that pretense, to shore up the straw man they want to poke. The want to depict Israel as a bogey man, deservingly or not. Although the popular media characterization of Netanyahu is misguided, those who know his record can cite his consistently relenting under pressure. The starkest example was the agreement for withdrawal from most of Hebron. President Clinton agreed to release Jonathan Pollard, in exchange for it. Then he reneged. That should have ended the deal, and PM Netanyahu pretended it had. He had his staff put their valises outside their doors, to be taken to the airport. The U.S. staff found the valises to be empty. They realized that Netanyahu was bluffing. They called his bluff. He carried out his end of the deal, although the U.S. did not carry out his end. When running for this second stint as Prime Minister, Netanyahu assured the people that he had changed. And so he holds out for a while, talks tough, makes sense, but in the end, gives in. Is the weakness Netanyahu displays just poor character, or has the U.S. some hold over him? He isn't weak in fighting dissent in his political party. Why weak only in national security?
GAZA LIVING STANDARD EXCEEDS EGYPT'S A little noticed fact is that the standard of living in Gaza exceeds Egypt's. And that is with the embargo on Gaza. Israel's recent easing of the embargo is because of any humanitarian crisis, which does not exist in Gaza. It is due to the success of Hamas and allies in misrepresenting the situation as a humanitarian crisis, mis-characterizing Israel as an occupying power with responsibility to take care of the people of Gaza. "The ability of this Goebbels-type propaganda to entrench a tremendous lie in the consciousness of the international community testifies to the continued vulnerability of naive Westerners to sophisticated psychological warfare and to the complicity of much of the Western press in this enterprise." The successful propaganda exercise by the flotilla is as much against the rest of the West as against Israel. Radical Islam is probing the West, seeking to neutralize its power to resist takeover. Easing the embargo strengthens Hamas. Hamas will take credit for the easing. It will, after all, distribute the new goods coming in. "Strengthening this radical theological regime...which is linked to revolutionary Iran, defies Western rational thinking." Ironically, it strengthens the regime against its Fatah rival that the West, keeps asking Israel to make concessions to bolster. Israel disengaged from Gaza five years ago. It had no embargo against it, then. Gaza had the freedom to develop itself into something worthwhile. Instead, it chose jihad and devoted itself to war by terrorism. It fired thousands of missiles at Israeli civilians. It has not moral right to demand that Israel let goods through for its criminal war effort. If Israel ever had occupation responsibilities [which I deny], it gave them up. Gaza now has made itself enemy territory. Its people chose Hamas rule. Israel owes it nothing and has the right to defend itself against it. A sovereign state "...has every right to close its border to a belligerent neighbor." Israel has "...no obligation whatsoever to provide water, electricity, fuel or access to food and/or medical supplies to its forsworn enemies. Why on earth should Israel aid those that want to eradicate its existence?" Oh, to be "humanitarian?" Israel should repudiate any obligation to Gaza and close its border completely, first giving a few months for Gaza to try to develop alternative supply routes. Let Egypt take on the headache (Prof. Efriam Inbar of begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, in IMRA, 7/4/10). The concessions that the West asks Israel to make to bolster Abbas' Fatah regime never cease being demanded. The notion of strengthening Abbas is a convenient excuse for an anti-Israel policy. Since he remains weak but stubborn, he always seems to need shoring up. And so his forces are being built up toward becoming the spearhead for a Syrian thrust into Israel. He would become part of the jihadist axis that has been attacking the U.S. The U.S. would not have Israel to help hold jihad in check. The West no longer thinks rationally. It thinks ideologically, emotionally, and without regard to facts. It does not understand the universality of jihad, a jihad against all. Mr. Inbar does not make it clear that hopes of making genuine peace with Abbas rests on other misconceptions and mis-characterizations of Abbas' intentions and of phony distinctions between Abbas and Hamas. (For an non-Zionist's article finding no humanitarian crisis in
Gaza,
ISRAEL HINTS AT EXTENDING CONSTRUCTION FREEZE 
As PM Netanyahu was about to leave for Washington, his Administration intimated that he would extend the freeze past September, to areas outside the large settlement blocs, if he hinted that Obama said he would recognize Israel's right to keep the large settlement blocs. It would be put as Netanyahu hinting that Obama now would accept Pres. Bush's letter assuring Israel it would be justified in keeping those blocs. Bush's letter was the key to PM Sharon getting the green light to abandon Gaza. Give up Gaza, get the large settlement blocs, was the idea. [Israel gave up Gaza, but Obama and Clinton professed not to know about Bush's letter, though we remember it well from the news reports at the time. Now Obama knows about it? Then why not be honorable and honor it, instead of selling it again?] Just a hint? Then Obama could claim he was misunderstood. And Israel would have given up something for nothing. Perhaps Obama would quibble over what is a "large" settlement bloc. Just when Obama has to be careful to avoid losing control over Congress, and has less ability to pressure Netanyahu, Netanyahu prepares for meeting with Obama by stopping the Knesset from helping him avoid what pressure Obama can exert. That was the proposed bill to let the Knesset veto further freezes (IMRA, 7/5/10). This is the way Netanyahu works: (1) Reject a freeze; (2) Impose a freeze, but claim it is temporary; (3) Defeat a bill giving the Knesset the power to reject an extension of the freeze: (4) Start proposing an extension of the freeze in return for a hint of an already promised recognition of an Israeli right from another U.S. official, one who contradicts himself constantly. Does Netanyahu think we did not see his betrayal coming? Does he think he is the only one who plays chess, and can see a step ahead? The U.S. may be wrong to keep selling the same concessions, but what can one say of Israel, that keeps buying the same concessions? Neither leader is protecting his national interest. Netanyahu fails to protect his national security and national patrimony, in these matters. Obama fails to protect his national security, which depends on defeating radical Islam, not assisting it against Israeli resistance. Another way Netanyahu works is to declare publicly he had no freeze, while privately barring construction. When he publicly imposed a freeze, he exempted public buildings. The photo shows the frozen construction site of a public building. Since the Netanyahu regime really is leftist, its deception works against the Jews, not against the Arabs, though anti-Zionists haven't the integrity to admit it if they even can see it.
LAWFARE IN BRITAIN CRAMPS ISRAELIS Col. Udi Ben-Mocha and family had their bags packed for a year off in London, when they were ordered not to go. The IDF was concerned that the Colonel, who had just completed his two years of commanding the Hebron brigade, would become the victim of British lawfare. Britain allows any individual to initiate a criminal lawsuit against a visiting foreign national [regardless of the individual's lack of what, in the U.S. would be called "standing," lack of evidence, and lack of sincerity. Arabs and other anti-Zionists bring such suits and lose them. They do not mind losing cases after smearing Israel and getting publicity over it]. The government of Israel is afraid that so great is anti-Israel prejudice in Britain, even poor cases could win. There is too much leniency in Britain toward the prejudice that Israeli officers must be war criminals. This is a form of mischievous harassment that Israel should find a way to stop. Perhaps Israel should treat British citizens the same, until Britain reforms. Commanders of the Hebron brigade usually get promoted to top military posts (David Wilder, Hebron Jewish community, 7/5/10) Treating Britain reciprocally might be as if two wrongs make a right. But the abuse of court systems by people who really are the enemies of the countries whose courts they abuse, is doubly wrong.
UNIFIL, LEBANON, AND ISRAEL 
Israel states that Hizbullah has turned 160 Shiite villages in southern Lebanon into military compounds containing rockets. In 2007, a roadside bomb killed six Spanish members of UNIFIL, known for particular diligence. In the past week, residents of some of Shiite villages harassed UNIFIL troops 20 times. In Kabarikha, residents threw stones at the troops, grabbed some of their weapons, climbed onto their truck, and dismantled the antenna. The Lebanese Army got the weapons back to UNIFIL. UN and Lebanese officials believe that much of the violence was committed by Hizbullah activists. Indeed, the head of Hizbullah's parliamentary faction says that these clashes have limited UNIFIL's ability to perform its mission of keeping a Hizbullah military presence and arms out of southern Lebanon. UNIFIL's commander asked the Lebanese government for protection. UNIFIL tension with the Lebanese Army is growing. Israel believes that Shiite officers in the Lebanese Army coordinate these tensions with Hizbullah. UN Secretary-General Ban issued a report blaming Israel entirely for border tension there. He attributes the tensions to Israeli accusations that Syria has given Hizbullah advanced missiles. Ban's report, however, omitted mention of the many instances of Lebanese [Hizbullah] violence and interference with UNIFIL patrols. Before Ban issued the report, Israel advised him of three of the instances in which Lebanese villagers harassed UN troops and stole their equipment. Israel also related to him the indications that the villagers were with, or instigated by, Hizbullah. Although the report mentioned five incidents in which UN troops were injured and a truck was stolen, Ban refused to blame Hizbullah (IMRA, 7/5/10). Some time ago, I reported that Hizbullah was forcefully buying out non-Shiites from southern Lebanese villages. Obviously it was preparing for what Israel later reported as militarization of the border. It makes sense to suppose that Hizbullah ordered the intimidation of the UNIFIL troops, so it can have a free hand in militarizing the border. As far as the jihadists are concerned, the UN has done its part, in getting Israel to withdraw from the war before destroying Hizbullah. Now, in typical Islamic style, Hizbullah is rearming for the next military engagement, regardless of the UN agreement. In view of all those Hizbullah violations of the ceasefire, it makes sense for Israel to at least record the enemy emplacements, before the enemy opens fire. That means over-flights, which violate the ceasefire. To wax indignant against the over-flights, as some do, and to ignore the provocative Hizbullah violations, as those same people do, is the kind of hypocrisy that facilitates Arab aggression again. Peacekeepers can be effective either if heavily armed and numerous, or if the local populations want peace. UNIFIL apparently is too small and poorly armed a force to deal with Hizbullah, or is afraid to open fire. The local population is not interested in peace, being controlled as it is by Hizbullah. There was no point to assigning UNIFIL to keep the peace or in arranging the ceasefire, which saved the terrorist organization and gave it the opportunity to build itself into an army that intimidates UNIFIL.
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
DEAR JEWISH COLLEGE STUDENTS:
Posted by Yosef Rabin, July 6, 2010. |
|
My name is Yosef Rabin. I made Aliyah almost a year ago after having graduated from North Eastern Illinois University this past summer. After high school I was privileged to study in Israel for a couple of years and then went on to serve as a combat soldier in the IDF Netzach Yehuda 97th Battalion. I think it is safe to say that I have learned a thing or two with regard to defending the Jewish People and our inherent right to the Land of Israel. When I was in university I watched as the pro-Israel group on campus was helpless against the onslaught of vile incitement and hate aimed at the Jewish State. I have seen a similar trend in universities across the US and I would like to suggest as to why this is. Pro-Israel groups talk about a lot of great things: Israel's democratic values, the IDF's unparalleled morality in battle, her right to self defense, Israel's hi-tech and so many other wonderful aspects of the State of Israel. However, this is exactly the problem. The Arab sympathizers talk about one thing and one thing only, justice! They want the world to believe that they stand in the field of justice, while the Jewish People stand in the wrong. In a sense they are completely right; if we Jews came in and usurped their land, we would have no right to continue to be here. We would have no right to defend what is not ours to defend! However, if we Jews returned to our ancestral homeland and our bond to her stems from the deepest historical and religious grounds, then it is we who stand in the field of justice and they who stand in the wrong. You cannot mix apples and oranges and expect to win the debate; it does not work that way. Let me tell you: the audience will not buy it. They talk about justice, so you must talk about justice! During my last spring semester in NEIU, a Jewish professor wrote a terrible anti-Israel/Jewish piece, which was published prominently in the university newspaper online and in print. He even went as far to write that Israel was "the greatest mistake of the past century" and that "in Judaism, land has never been holy." Needless to say, the Jew haters rejoiced, and Jewish students were too stunned to speak. It was obvious that hitting back with the same old "Israel is such a wonderful democracy" was not going to work. That was not the issue at hand; the issue at hand was our intrinsic right to the land. I wrote back a very strong letter to the editor (see links at end of article), which was published in both the print and online additions of the university newspapers. In my letter I focused on one issue and one issue only, our right to the land through mainly history and through the word of our Torah. Considering that the two intertwine, I put strong emphasis on what the Torah has to say about our connection with the land, because you cannot argue against it. No one dares to tell the Christians how to run their affairs in Vatican City nor would anyone dare tell the Muslims what to do in Mecca, because it is sacred to them. There is no point in arguing about it, neither the Muslims nor Christians will give in regarding their sacred lands. After my letter was published, one of the leaders of the anti-Israel movement came to me with a confession. He said, "We gathered to talk about your letter and no one knew what to say...we were speechless. You were so adamant and passionate about your religious and historical connection to the land, what could we have said." My friends, this is the key! You must be unrelenting and declare without fear that the Land of Israel belongs solely to the Jewish Nation and that we are committed to the greatest act of justice by returning to our land! My friends, YOU MUST SPEAK WORDS OF JUSTICE! They may not agree with you, but they will respect you for it. It will change the nature of the debate and swing things in our favor. Jews must walk with their heads held high and not be apologetic in any way in calling for our return to our homeland. We have nothing to apologize about for building in Jerusalem, Chevron or Beit Lechem. Do NOT talk about the peace process; leave this to the politicians. Focus on one thing and one thing only, making sure everyone understands where you stand. IT IS OUR LAND AND WE HAVE RETURNED BY HISTORICAL AND RELIGIOUS VIRTUE. Please do not get me wrong — I am not telling you to demonize them, to stoop to their level — but I am asking you to stand up for what is yours. For example, if the Arabs and their supporters have a demonstration about how Israel wants to harm the Dome of the Rock, which stands on our holy Temple Mount, you must respond! Respond not by calling for the destruction of the Dome of the Rock, but, rather, rally for Jewish Rights on the Temple Mount! Speak about our connection to the place. Sadly, as a nation, we have completely forfeited our right to the Temple Mount. Think of this logically: if a Jew has no right to walk and pray at the site of his 3,000 year old holy Temple, what right can he possibly have in Tel Aviv, which just turned 100? In my humble opinion, this issue needs to be addressed quickly and unrelentingly — it must be front and center. We must restore Jewish Pride in the Land of Israel and we must begin with its foundation stone, which is the Temple Mount! I would like to start a worldwide campaign on this issue. I am certain that once Jewish students understand the religious, cultural and historical importance of the Temple Mount, they will passionately push it. The Land of Israel, for the People of Israel, according to the Torah of Israel! Letter to the Editor: A Jewish Voice Against Zionism
Letter to the Editor (My response)
Contact Yosef Rabin at 613yos@gmail.com, This article appeared in Arutz-7 (IsraelNationalNews). |
|
THE PA IS ALL TAKE AND NO GIVE
Posted by Ted Belman, July 5, 2010. |
|
Last week I attended a seminar on the legal status of the territories hosted by Media Central for reporters and correspondents. Professor Ruth Lapidot, renowned scholar on international law, and a young female Arab lawyer, Nada Kiswanson representing al Haq presented. al Haq, funded by the EU, prepares legal analysis from the Arab point of view. Lapidot started out by giving a balanced presentation of the law with respect to the Geneva Convention, occupation law, settlements and the like. She was entirely devoid of passion. Kiswanson spoke fluently and passionately and argued the case from the Palestinian perspective and mentioned the word "occupation" in every sentence. Everything she said needed to be challenged because she was stretching the law beyond recognition. And of course she buttressed her opinion by claiming world opinion and the General Assembly of the UN agreed with her. Obviously both are irrelevant in a court of law. Her presentation reminded me of the lawyer's tactic of drowning the opponent in paper most of which was irrelevant but still required some attention. Similarly when the Palestinians present facts or law, they throw so many inaccuracies at you that your efforts are consumed with dismissing all the lies rather than focusing on the truth. Unfortunately, when she said the Palestinians were a people, Lapidot agreed with her. I wanted to ask what made them a "people" believing that there are a list of criteria to define a people, none of which the "Palestinian people" share. Even if they are to be now considered a "people", that doesn't give them an automatic right to a state. Look at the Kurds who certainly meet the criteria but are denied a state. Essentially she was demanding that Israel withdraw from all territories which is not what Res 242 provides. She was relying on the French translation of the resolution rather than the English rendition which is the official one. She talked about the "occupied Palestinian territories" but did agree with me when I said the occupation was legal. She stressed that the occupation was to be temporary and I pointed out, to the contrary, that the Security Council resolution, agreed to by the PA, said that the occupation was to continue until there was an agreement on "secure and recognized borders". The PA keeps alleging that it is temporary to avoid negotiating such borders in order to end the occupation.. Another correspondent acknowledged that there was an occupation but asked what made the land "Palestinian". She answered that the Palestinians were always there and in a majority before the state was declared. A follow up question suggested that following that logic, all of Israel was Palestinian land. She declined to go there. Of course she ignores that prior to Israel coming into existence in 1948, the Jews were referred to as Palestinians and the Arabs that were there were just that...Arabs. She also ignores that but for the British violating the Mandate by restricting Jewish immigration while permitting Arab immigration, the Jews would have been in a majority. Prior to the Mandate the lands were part of the Ottoman Empire until they came under the control of Britain and France who defeated them in WWI. International law recognizes the right of the victors to redraw borders. Pursuant to this right, the Palestine Mandate was created with a view to such lands becoming the Jewish homeland. Jews were given the right of "close settlement." This right has never been abrogated. Thus the Jews have every right to settle in Judea and Samaria. Thus the settlements are legal. Somebody should tell Obama. It was clear that she wanted all the territories to be given to the Palestinians based on her legal reasoning and world opinion. Lapidot pointed out that the Roadmap required all parties to negotiate all issues in order to come to an agreement. Resolution 242 does likewise. Negotiations imply that there be give and take to reach agreement. Israel, began this process because she believed that there would be no resolution without her agreement. Never did she think, prior to the Obama administration, that she would be denied negotiations and would have a solution imposed on her. A year ago, President Obama promised King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia that he would impose the Saudi Plan on Israel without requiring the Arab countries to sign a peace agreement. The PA does not want negotiations which imply that they must give and not just take. They are relying on Obama and world opinion to force Israel to do the giving without any taking. Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. He now lives in Jerusalem. Contact him at tedbel@israpundit.com |
|
PROFESSOR INBAR'S ARTICLE: GAZANS DESERVE A BETTER FUTURE
Posted by Roberta Dzubow, July 5, 2010. |
|
To : Professor Efraim Inbar and BESA Center Staff: Hello from Plymouth Meeting (near Philadelphia) Pennsylvania. I want to express how pleased I was to read Professor Inbar's article "Gazans Deserve a Better Future" spelling out Hamas' win/Israel's loss, and why it happened. I thought you might be interested to know my comments (see below) when I sent your assessments to my e-list. Professor Inbar, in the US we hear over and over again that Israel is an oppressor, aggressor, usurper. We hear that in Gaza there is a "humanitarian crisis." Even some Israeli messages allude to the "suffering of the Palestinian People." Then we see on television the Arab supplied and selected bombed areas in Gaza, with a few Arabs picking through the ruins. The pictures we see, the reports we hear, are almost 100% negative about Israel. (Haiti was an exception, we had about 2 to 3 days of praise for Israelis in Haiti — then it all disappeared — I guess the propagandists squelched that as quickly as they could). Bernice Lipkin, Editor of "Think Israel" wrote an excellent letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu about the mixed messages the world gets EVEN FROM ISRAEL ITSELF. Example : Israel is ours (but we'll trade some of it), Israel vacated Gaza (but we still supply it ) etc. There is no clear assertion of rights, historical roots, solid unmoveable and announced uncrossable lines. There are no pictures of the abundance in Gaza, their restaurants/catering halls, beaches, and most of all their outdoor markets heaped with so much food, and stuffed with clothing. I have seen these pictures on the Internet. — they do not exist for most of the world. What Israel provides to Gaza, in spite of its responsibilities as a "non-occupying power," are unknown to most. Egypt being part of the Gaza story, is unknown to most. The media focus is controlled by Arab propaganda, and against Israel. Israel should use pictures, pictures, pictures because they are the most powerful evidence to "re-paint" the pictures the Islamists have painted. Sincerely,
Roberta E. Dzubow ___________________________________ The author clearly sets forth the insanity of Israel keeping its borders open with Gaza, and supplying them with food, fuel, water, electricity, and medical supplies, WHILE BEING TARGETED FOR ANNIHILATION by them. No longer under Israeli occupation since 2005, this Hamas ruled entity garners the world's sympathy by outright lies and the distortions of propaganda techniques. One such successful technique, "redirecting the argument, " invalidates Israel's actions against the jihadists on their terrorist Flotilla. Neutralizing and diverting attention away from the Turks' blatant barbarism — viciously beating, stabbing, shooting, throwing an Israeli overboard, the media repeats the planted message: "but it was in International Waters." So that becomes the focal point — the most major offense. And of course, that "offense" finds Israel guilty, yet again. Israel did intercept the terrorist ship shortly before it left those waters, but the "waterline" is not sacrosanct compared to the evil monsters' horrible deeds. Yet diverted from the Turk's pre-planned ambush and hideous cruelty, Israel is painted as an illegal "outlaw nation." Israeli blood disappears in all of the whitewash...
This below is by Efraim Inbar. It is BESA Center Perspectives Paper
No. 111, June 30, 2010
Efraim Inbar is professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and director of the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies. This article first appeared on bitterlemons.org on June 28, 2010. |
|
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The recent decision of the Israeli government to ease its blockade on the Gaza Strip works more in favor of strengthening Hamas rule than it does toward advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts. The international pressure that led to this move indicates a gross misunderstanding of Israel's right to self-defense as well as a grave misperception as to Israel's responsibilities as a non-occupying power. It is clear that the international community has succumbed to the anti-Israel propaganda war. Introduction Bowing to misguided international pressure, particularly from the West, the Israeli government, on June 20, 2010, lifted nearly three years of restrictions on civilian goods allowed into the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. The restrictions had been imposed in reaction to the repeated launching of missiles into Israel's population centers. This decision hardly makes any strategic sense because it helps Hamas, an ally of revolutionary Islamist Iran. Both are anti-Western forces focused on destroying the Jewish state. Giving Credence to Hamas The easing of the blockade reflects the success of a Hamas propaganda campaign to depict the situation in Gaza as a humanitarian disaster. While Gaza is not prospering, the standard of living there is generally higher than in Egypt — a little noticed fact. The ability of this Goebbels-type propaganda to entrench a tremendous lie in the consciousness of the international community testifies to the continued vulnerability of naive Westerners to sophisticated psychological warfare and to the complicity of much of the Western press in this enterprise. The step taken by the Israeli government also significantly helps Hamas strengthen its grip on Gazans, as Hamas controls the distribution of any goods entering its territory. Moreover, even if Hamas allows for a general improvement in the daily lives of all Gazans, this reduces the incentive for regime change, which should be part of the Western goal to give Gazans a better future. Strengthening this radical theological regime in the eastern Mediterranean, which is linked to revolutionary Iran, defies Western rational thinking. The entrenchment of Hamas rule in Gaza amplifies the schism in Palestinian society and strengthens Hamas' influence in the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority. It is also a slap in the face of President Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the PA, who demanded the blockade's continuation. Hamas' achievement here further undermines whatever ability, albeit very limited, the Palestinian national movement had to move toward a compromise with the Jewish state. The international pressure that led to the Israeli decision also indicates a gross misunderstanding of Israel's predicament and its legitimate right of self-defense. Israel totally disengaged from Gaza in 2005, hoping that the Gazans would focus their energy on state-building and achieving prosperity. Gaza could have decided to try to become a Hong Kong or a Singapore. Yet, Hamas turned Gaza into a political entity engaged in waging war on the Jewish state by launching thousands of missiles with the specific intent to harm Israeli civilians. Ironically, Hamas demands that Israel allow a supply of goods into the Strip. It is legally and morally outrageous to claim that Israel is responsible for the Gazans, who are no longer under Israeli occupation and who have supported in great numbers the rule of Hamas. After the 2005 withdrawal, Israel's responsibilities — stemming from previously being an occupying power — ended. Since Gaza is an enemy country, it does not deserve any special treatment from Israel beyond the latter's legitimate steps taken in pursuit of self-defense. Israel, like any other sovereign state, has every right to close its border with a belligerent neighbor. Moreover, it has no obligation whatsoever to provide water, electricity, fuel or access to food and/or medical supplies to its forsworn enemies. Why on earth should Israel aid those that want to eradicate its existence? The bewildering and hypocritical international response to Israel's attempts to prevent war materiel from reaching Gaza, as manifested in the criticism surrounding the "Gaza flotilla" incident, should be of great concern to Jerusalem. Again, we see the successful application of a propaganda war whose objective is to deny Israel its legitimate right of self-defense. This campaign is part of a larger plan designed by the enemies of the West to neutralize the superior capacity of the West, and Israel in particular. Conclusion Instead of easing the blockade, the Israeli government should have announced its intention to exercise its sovereign right to close the border with Gaza and to halt the transfer of any goods to its enemy within several months. Israel must make clear to the world that it refuses to accept responsibility for the welfare of Gazan residents, particularly since they are employing violence against the Jewish state. The period of time leading up to the actual border closure should be used to establish alternative routes of supply via Egypt, which also borders Gaza. Egypt is unlikely to welcome such a development because it prefers to keep the Gaza hot potato in Israel's lap. However, the Egyptians are much more adept at dealing with the Gazans, whom they ruled in the past using Arab methods. The Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere are not only Israel's problem, but constitute a regional headache. Therefore, responsible Arab actors should take part in addressing this issue. Contact Roberta Dzubow by email at Roberta@adgforum.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: THIS MUST BE SAID
Posted by Arlene Kushner, July 5, 2010. |
|
As I write, we are perhaps 24 or 36 hours from the meeting Obama will have with Netanyahu at the White House. There is much that could be said, with regard to politics here, and attempts to prevent our prime minister from caving to the president. But it's a holiday in the US, and my post yesterday was lengthy, and I am going to focus on just one news item here, because it is revelatory, and thus significant. The rest will keep. ~~~~~~~~~~ Many of you — depending on age — will remember (with horror and pain) the Palestinian Arab terrorist attack on the Israeli Olympics team at Munich in 1972. The man who claimed to be the mastermind of this obscene attack was Abu Daoud, who has just died. The death was reported by the Palestinian Authority news agency, WAFA. CNN is now carrying that report, which says that PA President Mahmoud Abbas sent condolences to the family. He wrote a letter to them in which he said: "He is missed. He was one of the leading figures of Fatah and spent his life in resistance [against the occupation] and sincere work as well as physical sacrifice for his people's just causes."
~~~~~~~~~~ I have just written about how Abbas has donned a suit of moderation for purposes of political expediency, but that he is not to be trusted. Providing evidence of the real Abbas is important, and so I provide it here. Abbas is not a partner for peace. It is nothing more than a charade, eagerly accepted by the Obama administration. Holiday or no holiday, take a minute to do something for Israel. Send a message to the president, including the link above and the words of praise that Abbas just wrote to the family of the man who planned a horrendous terror attack. Tell Obama that to push Prime Minister Netanyahu to make concessions to Abbas is simply wrong and an injustice against the State of Israel. Tell him peace cannot be achieved in this way, and that, as a US citizen who votes, you are watching. Fax: 202-456-2461 White House Comment line: 202-456-1111
Offices are closed now, but will open in the morning. Let the e-mail messages and the faxes be waiting. I suspect phone calls to the comment line will need to wait until the morning. ~~~~~~~~~~ Then, please, send a similar message to your elected representatives in Congress, imploring them to do what they can to stop Obama from pressuring Netanyahu to make concessions to a man who has just praised a terrorist. For your Congresspersons:
For your Senators:
~~~~~~~~~~ Please share this broadly with others who might act, without delay. ~~~~~~~~~~ I end this with a link to a video that is a joy and delight to view (and with thanks to Nan A).
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
TALIBAN ATTACK U.S. AID CONTRACTORS; U.S. P.R. FIRM TO HELP QATAR BREAK WILL TO KEEP GAZA BLOCKADED
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 5, 2010. |
|
TALIBAN ATTACK U.S. AID CONTRACTORS The Taliban took responsibility for an attack on the office of a U.S. Agency for International Development office in northern Afghanistan, Friday. With bombs and rifles, they killed British, German, Philippines, and Afghan nationals. Some workers hid. Guards held off the assailants, until armed forces arrived. All the terrorists were shot dead. The Taliban have a policy of attacking foreign agencies trying to rehabilitate their country to wean popular support from the Taliban. The Taliban claim that the agency provided intelligence for special forces (Alan Collison, Wall St. J., 7/3, A7). This incident and policy is typical of jihad. Hamas does the same when it attacks aid portals or convoys. Fatah tries to keep its workers from officially authorized joint industrial zones and from working for Jews in Judea-Samaria. They boycott Israel but complain about Israel's embargo on Gaza. They harm their own workers, and blame low standards of living on Israel. Extreme religious or other ideologies are inhumane, even to their own people. Thus terrorists fight foreigners seeking to build up their country. Should the foreign aid workers be hated and the terrorists called humanitarian? No, terrorists are heartless murderers. Some version of religion they have! One reader descends ever further into extremist libel, when he asserts that the Zionists intend to replace the mosque on the Temple Mount with a Third Jewish Temple. It happens that I met the head of the Temple Mount Faithful and visited their display of reproduced artifacts for the Temple. Their talks were interesting, but they have no support, just a few members. The government rarely lets them onto the Mount. To accuse "the Zionists" of intending to raze the mosque, while the Defense Minister who would give away the Old City containing it is designated a negotiator for Israel, is the kind of vicious, reckless lying that can cause wars. That reader routinely ignores real problems mentioned in my articles, such as Muslim intolerance of Jews praying on the Mount their ancestors built, and Israeli government acquiescence to that intolerance, and Waqf destruction of ancient Jewish artifacts, in order to endorse terrorists' fabricated claims of Jewish plans to demolish the mosque. Ignore the truth, change the subject to a lie. Such readers are apologists for jihad. Having nothing to say but libel, such readers complain that I am afraid of their nothing-to-say, when actually, as I have warned, I delete their name-calling irrelevancies. They are unable to comment on the topic like a mature adult, although such comments I do not delete however they dispute my articles. The further dishonesty of such readers is apparent from their ignoring my deleting of comments that agree with me but call opposing readers names. B'TSELEM TIMES FALSE REPORT TO EMBARRASS ISRAELI PM MEETING WITH OBAMA B'Tselem, an Israeli NGO that seems to want to turn Israel into an Arab-controlled area, timed an accusatory report to embarrass Israeli PM Netanyahu at his meeting with President Obama, says Yesha Council head Danny Dayan. He said that B'Tselem asked the Israeli media, also mostly leftist, to sit on its report until shortly before the Prime Minister meets with the President. [The idea is to give the President as club against Netanyahu without giving people time to refute the report.] The report accuses the government of giving special subsidies to Jews to settle in the Territories and that a fifth of them settle on land owned by Arabs. Mr. Dayan denies both accusations. He said that the government subsidizes much, but has no special subsidies for Judea-Samaria and in fact offers less than for other areas [such as development towns in the Negev or southern Israel]. Such a false report would mar Israeli relations with the U.S., which was promised that Israel would not give special subsidies to move to Judea-Samaria. "B'Tselem was the organization that was most quoted in the Goldstone Report," said Dayan, who then delivered his sharpest blow: "It has become an anti-Zionist organization at the forefront of the effort to liquidate the State of Israel." He said its timing of the report is so anti-government as to border on treason. In that effort, by sitting on the news when it can do the most damage to the government, the media is complicit. He said that B'Tselem's stated concern for civil rights is "an excuse for weakening Israel." (Hillel Fendel, Arutz-7, 7/4/10.) Not long ago, I reported that more than one town in Judea-Samaria brought a libel suit against a leftist organization for similar claims, and won. The organization had to pay the towns damages. Some of these organizations recruit Arabs to make claims for the land, including Arabs whose families never lived there. EHUD BARAK LOSING INFLUENCE IN PARTY, GAINING IT IN REGIME A growing segment of the Labor Party dislikes its presence within the governing coalition and Ehud Barak conduct, though he is gaining influence in the regime. When the former head of Labor Party conducted some foreign relations without the knowledge of the Foreign Minister, Defense Min. Barak claimed he disapproved of the break with precedent. Former Party head Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, whom Netanyahu assigned for that task, then reproved Barak for that stated disapproval, asserting the Barak told him Barak approved of his taking on the task. Meanwhile, PM Netanyahu has assigned Barak the task of negotiating security arrangements with the Palestinian Authority. Barak has a reputation for making, proposing, and praising three different withdrawals (Hillel Fendel, Arutz-7, 7/5/10.)
U.S. P.R. FIRM TO HELP QATAR BREAK WILL TO KEEP GAZA BLOCKADED Qatar has hired the U.S. public relations firm, Fenton Communications, to help it break Israel's and Egypt's blockade of Gaza. Fenton registered as foreign agents. The project describes the blockade as "brutal and inhumane" and "crippling." Qatar's project website is filled with stories of Israel blocking ships from reaching Gaza, which blockage it depicts as a human rights violation. Another story is by a passenger on the embattled ship. He claims that the IDF attacked innocent activists, and omits the evidence that Turkish Islamists, possessing weapons, attacked the soldiers. Hamas members who live in Qatar have sent millions of dollars to their terrorist organization in Gaza. One of them is Sheikh Yusef al-Qaradawi, "who has given Hamas $21 million to buy buildings in Jerusalem." The project site blames all of Gaza's problems on Israel. One such problem is the shortage of electricity, primarily due to Hamas-Fatah factional conflict. Another is difficulty for students. One of the sources of those difficulties is explained, "'Whenever I think about the siege, I become exhausted, which impacts my studies,' one female student complains." The project, al-Fakhoora, is named after the UN school that Israel was accused in 2009 of having shelled during the war in Gaza. The charge soon was shown to be false, but the website retains the false charge (Maayana Miskin, Arutz-7, 7/5/10). The ships that were blocked from reaching Gaza were not blocked from reaching Israel and their goods were not blocked from continuing overland the short distance to Gaza. Therefore, blocking the ships is not inhumane. The website ignores the purpose of the blockade, which is to prevent heavy arms from being shipped to Hamas, for the inhumane purpose of murdering Israeli civilians. The UN school story is a variation of the big lie technique. A false accusation is raised against Israel. It is disproved, but the anti-Zionists lack the integrity to accept any news not from their own biased outlets and to drop the charges. They repeat the falsehoods indefinitely.
SYRIA SEEKS ARGENTINIAN SUPPORT FOR CLAIM TO GOLAN 
Argentina Pres. Cristina Kirchner (AP/Gerry Broome) Syria's Pres. Assad has offered Argentina political support of its claims to the Falkland Islands held by Britain, if Argentina supports Syria's claims to the Golan Heights, most of which was annexed by Israel (Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, Arutz-7, 7/5/10). Assad is using log rolling the same as does the UN in general and the U.S. Congress. Issues get support not on their merits but for exchange of lobbying favors. But when the resolution or bill is passed, people take it seriously as the expression of mankind or as the result of legislative study.
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
OBAMA MEETS AHMADINEJAD
Posted by M.D. Murdock, July 5, 2010. | |
|
Having become intimately involved with this book, I can attest it combines the fiercest of intellects with the wickedly humorous. "Obama meets Ahmadinejad" presents seriously — even direly — important information about our world today, in the context of a raucous display of hilarity the likes of which has rarely been seen outside of "Animal House" or, possibly "Animal Farm." Amil's alter ego takes the reader on a wild romp through the political hay that enthralls, inspires and leaves him or her wanting for more. He — they — treat the reader to an entertaining exposéof germane and newsworthy events that have shaped our world — such as rigged and fraudulent elections, surprising ancestry, and countless "misdeeds real or rumored" that have nevertheless made their way into popular consciousness. Controversial and hazardous subjects such as the "Birther Movement," Iran's nuclear program, Islam's treatment of women and the Gulf oil disaster — none of these is off-limits in this witty wrecking ball of a ride. What would such a meeting between Obama and Ahmadinejad produce and portend? How will each man respond to the other throwing up in his face the worst criticisms and calumny we hear about them both? What will be the joint solution of these two influential world leaders to the numerous worldly — and even otherworldly — issues pressing us today? The future of the world may indeed depend on it. Here is one example of the fascinating exchanges between these two men in this hard-to-put-down parody... THE FASCIST Speaking of oil, America is incurably addicted to it — although you are doing your best to give the United States an alternative energy plan, specifically to keep your money out of our terrorist hands. That is something which must not happen, of course, because Iran has the world's third largest reserves — envious? Yes, we know you are after our oil. After all, even if you are an internationalist, you do not want your chosen homeland to fall apart, do you? We have the oil — now you are going to have to beg to get at it. Oh, especially since that national disaster in the Mexican Gulf — how will you recover from that without our help? We had a feeling that if that really happened, your country would start to go down. THE FRAUD Wait just a minute — "if that really happened?!" What are you talking about? Did you just confess to sabotaging the oil rig in the Gulf? Talking heads say that it could cost us the country. You're saying you're behind it? I should strangle you with my own hands. THE FASCIST Well, your American Jews at Goldman Sachs were very useful — they did promise much of their gains for shorting the Gulf of Mexico rig on the stock market the day before the disaster. But do not lump us in with those Zionist criminals just yet, as we are not admitting our guilt or complicity in anything. And, I must say that those are no longer your hands. They belong to us. ——— More amazing dynamics follow, as the reader is bounced between the two politicos in a masterful manner, not sure where each is going to wind up — the ending will undoubtedly surprise you! This powerful book, Obama meets Ahmadinejad, is funny and light at points but its overall message is a story of corruption and redemption — but who reflects which and to what extent? And how DOES it all end? In this regard, this small tome is also a sobering cautionary tale that seeks to educate about potentials that may not be terribly pleasant, if we don't stop them. Amil clearly put his heart and soul into this work, as part of a lifelong mission to help better the world through his writing, by courageously critiquing dangerous and frightening ideologies and actions that oppress significant numbers of people globally and threaten true human civilization. Imani's a patriotic American in the true sense of the word — and as an ex-Muslim Persian escapee of the Islamic Republic of Iran, he knows only too well what that regime represents and what freedom is all about. As a refugee from oppression into the welcoming arms of the American Constitution, Amil is one of many immigrants who value their adopted homeland for its liberties and opportunities. For the love of freedom, peace and humanity, read this book!
See
|
|
KEEPIN' IT REAL
Posted by Marc Prowisor, July 5, 2010. |
|
The headlines are full of evasive maneuvers being used by our politicians, the Op-Eds are full of advice to be taken, and proper instructions and lessons are given on how to run the country, are rampant in Café's, Shuls and all sorts of demonstrations. Give up, release, don't release, land for, no land for, solutions, one state, two state, red state, blue state. Prime Minister Netanyahu doesn't want to embarrass President Obama, (No) Defense Minister Barak will do anything to embarrass Netanyahu. Double, triple, and quadruple standards are practiced to show how "nice" we are. All so far away from ground level, so far away from the mean streets. The other night some Arabs decided to infiltrate into a community in Judea and Samaria. They succeeded. Not only did they succeed, but also managed to steal a weapon. Thank Gd they decided to make a run for it and not go to the street where tens of teenagers were taking their Shabbat "rounds". Whether the infiltrators were spooked or whatever motive guided them, the situation that was a hairbreadth away could have been horrendous. This is the way it is, this is the way it was, and this is the way it will be...for now. Whether it is in Judea and Samaria, the Gazan border, the center or north of the country, this is the reality. There are many people out there that want to kill us, simply because we are Jews, and simply because we are in our land. Give them land you say? When did that stop them before? Here we are, all yelling for, and against, attending world conferences, listening to so called "leaders", while losing touch with reality on the ground. In the north, the Arabs steal land away from us in front of our eyes while we discuss the situation. Hezbollah builds an arsenal. Abbas tells us that he will allow us to keep the Kotel (Western Wall), then Erakat says no. Hamas smuggles in untold amounts of weapons and rockets. Our enemies, whose soul intent is to remove our presence from this land or worse, procure more and more weapons and equipment and I ask you... what are we doing? The world continues to gang up on us and we continue to apologize... for what? For living in our land? For not surrendering? For not dying? I am not against the conferences. I believe in writing our opinions, expressing our thoughts, even giving and taking advice, and that all favorite pastime — arguing. But we must not lose touch with the ground level. We must always remember what our enemies truly want. And whether you believe it or not, most of them, an overwhelming majority of them, harbor the desire that Jews not be here at all — and will do whatever they can, to further that desire. You can pretend to be in another world; you can think that it won't happen to you, but one day it might, and all because the obvious signs were ignored; the dots were not connected. There are terrorists and enemies out there that want to kill us, they rejoice in any harm they can cause us, wherever we are. This is what we must never forget and this is what we must fight against. We spend so much time and effort working to solve the "big picture", while the little picture is lost sight of. We worry about world opinion, about other world leaders. We fight each other, we take sides against each other, all this while our enemies laugh and consolidate more to join their ranks. We must protect ourselves first, we are the priority, and we have no other land or place to go. I am thankful and grateful that I can tuck my children into their beds at night, this is not the case for everybody and it can all change in the flash of a moment. Our reality over here is not exclusive to Israel... you will share it one day. That reality depends on all of us. Contact Marc Prowisor by email at marc@friendsofyesha.com. And
visit
This article appeared in Yesha Reviews
|
|
GEERT WILDERS: A DUTCH "REVOLUTIONARY" AND NEGLECTED AMERICAN AND ISRAELI HERO
Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, July 4, 2010. |
|
After 16 hours of manually counting the 9 million cast votes, the 9th of June 2010 Dutch general elections were finally no longer "too close to call". For the first time the Liberal Party (WD), lead by Mark Rutte did win 31 seats against 30 seats for Job Cohen's Social Democrats (PvdA). Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom (PVV) added an unprecedented 15 seats and became third with 24 seats, wrong footing every analyst — domestic and abroad. The local elections in March showed that the Dutch were going for a further fragmentation of the political landscape and a sharp turn to the right with Wilders' victories in Almere (5th city) and The Hague (seat of Crown and Government) and the Liberal's mushrooming in nearly every other city. The Hague was besieged by international media covering Rutte's predicted victory and Wilders' meteoric rise. Almost unanimously they concluded that Wilders' program, expressly his uncompromising Islam critique and rejection of mass immigration, was radically different and extremely challenging to Dutch politics — a true revolution. ...In the European Union the PW (Party for Freedom) of Wilders is actually outstripped in its reaction to the concerted Muslim attack. In Catalonia (Spain), curbing legislation against Islamic expressions such as the the burka and niqab and the building of mosques are currently implemented in cities such as Lleida and Reus (Tarragona). The same goes for Arhus in Denmark, which undid the obligation of serving halal food in schools and hospitals. In Flanders (Belgium), Paris (France), Hungary, Austria, Switzerland and Italy curbing legislation against the building of minnarets and the publicly wearing of burka and niqab are implemented. ... Geert Wilders is backed by groups such as the Tea Party and orthodox Christians in the US, and orthodox Jews around the globe. The hunch of the foreign media is that an alteration, something revolutionary, had suddenly happened in the Netherlands with the 9th of June 2010 Dutch election. Wilders' PVV probably, was correct. But it's not his party program that causes a revolution. Wilders causes the Dutch revolution. He is the revolution. ...Wrongfully or rightfully accused of nearly every evil imaginable, Geert Wilders, single handedly, caused a fundamental alteration in Dutch politics and society, which fits the definition of a revolution. What did he do? ... Wilders in person and expression is not nice but certainly charismatic. He doesn't care whether he's liked or not; he doesn't care about the unsettling effect of his critique. Clearly, like every politician in every nation and time he spins his facts, but unlike a great many Dutch politicians his facts are correct. Other commentary concerning Geert Wilder's found on the Internet proves him to be a true friend of Israel and the United States when it finally wakes up to the threat of Islam: 21 june 2010 Geert Wilders: "If Jerusalem falls, Athens and Rome are next." Geert Wilders, who leads the right-wing Party for Freedom (PVV) in Holland, said last week, he believes Jordan should be renamed "Palestine". The Jordanian government responded by saying Wilders' speech brought to mind the Israeli right wing, according to a report on Ynet. "There has been an independent Palestinian state since 1946, and it is the kingdom of Jordan," said Wilder. He also called on the Dutch government to refer to Jordan as Palestine and move its embassy from Ramat Gan to Jerusalem. Wilders Triumphs 14 juni 2010 Holland — long seen as a liberal, pot-smoking hippie hang-out — seems keen to defend the culture that's made it so free, to judge from this week's election: Geert Wilders, the controversial anti-Islamic Dutch politician, came third behind tied Liberal and Labour parties after elections in the Netherlands left no obvious winner or combination for a coalition government. Wilders could thus be kingmaker in the Dutch parliament after coming third with his Freedom Party (PVV) jumping from 9 to 24 seats thus becoming the swing vote between the two other parties in the Dutch Parliament. Finally: It so happens, I (jsk) personally heard Wilders speak at my synagogue in Palm Beach Florida a few months ago and was delighted with his outspoken honesty. The article I wrote relative to the experience can be found in Israel Commentary simply by typing Geert Wilders into the Search engine. Jerome S. Kaufman Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist
Organization of America and hosts the Israel Commentary website
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: SAY IT ISN'T SO!
Posted by Arlene Kushner, July 4, 2010. |
|
Happy Independence Day to America! May Americans be mindful on this day of the values of the founding fathers. ~~~~~~~~~~ Before I pick up with decidedly unsettling news, I want to share some responses to the posting of last night, regarding Israeli and American Jews — as well as some of my comments. These issues are too important and too relevant to our current situation to ignore. I cited Dr. Rettig regarding the 1.4 million Jews who served in armed forces in WWII but had no power. Commented one reader: Far more relevant to the fact that Jews failed to have an impact on military policy to save those threatened in the Shoah was the refusal or reluctance of American Jews of prestige and those who were even in government service to take a stand for saving fellow Jews. My reader specifically mentioned Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, I would add by way of example Rabbi Stephen Wise. And of course there were others. My immediate response to this was that in spite of their positions of power and prestige, these Jews may have in some sense felt powerless in a time that was prior to the founding of Israel. (Of course, this was no excuse morally, where saving Jewish lives was concerned — they had a moral imperative to try.) My thought was — and to some considerable extent still is — that the existence of Israel has empowered Jews in the US. ~~~~~~~~~~ But I have since thought of situations that give me pause. Not so many months ago, Obama called a meeting with (carefully selected) key American Jews leaders. This was the beginning of his politically motivated courting of American Jewish community. One leader in particular had critical comments after the meeting, and he shared these with a journalist. But anonymously. His unwillingness to come forward by name disturbed me greatly. What was he afraid of? Falling out of favor with the White House? Losing perks of his position? Was a climate set up within the meeting that worked against honest criticism? Here I see the essential conundrum of American Jewish power. In some instances, American Jews on the inside become co-opted by the system. This is definitely and sadly the case today. But, at best, to make a difference, one hopes to have influence with the powers-that-be — the president and his staff, members of the cabinet, etc. Thus, crossing those powers might result in (and is certainly perceived as carrying the risk of) a loss of influence. A sort of catch-22. This is a function, I think, of not having a Jewish national power base, while having become thoroughly immersed within and identified with the larger US power base. We might ask the question as to whether American Jews have attained success in integrating within the corridors of power to an extent that sometimes actually works against the interests of the Jewish people. I am generalizing, of course, and there are exceptions. Jewish members of Congress — I think in particular of Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA), and Congressman Eliot Engel (D-NY), but there are also others — are sometimes forthright in their public support of Israel. Their source of power is their constituency and their seat in Congress. Grassroots community — organizational and religious — leaders who command a base can have influence on power, best wielded by affecting, or threatening to affect, voting patterns or major donations. ~~~~~~~~~~ Other thoughts: The American Jewish community survives because of traditionally observant segments of that community. It is here that we find the least opting out, the most fervent support of, the Jewish people and of Israel. I would add this, as well: Israeli society is considerably more child-oriented. There is a broad mental set that encourages having more children — this is not the case among American Jews, who are more concerned with recreational opportunities, freedom to live a good life, ability to maintain a certain standard of living, etc. I don't have statistics, but I would bet that young American Jews are barely reproducing themselves. In Israel, our numbers are growing. It wasn't until I came to Israel that I found, for example, that it was routine for young couples to bring their babies with them when attending a wedding. A totally different mental set. ~~~~~~~~~~ Now as I begin to explore the news, I remind one and all that we are in the time period of "pre-Netanyahu visit to Obama." Thus we find multiple rumors and considerable posturing. Statements from credible sources should not be treated lightly, but neither should they taken as gospel. Sorting truth from fiction, and innuendo from forthright statement, is a difficult if not impossible task. ~~~~~~~~~~ Last week, two news reports emerged that were particularly disturbing — as they indicated the possibility of a caving by the Israeli government. First, news broke that Maj. Gen. Eitan Dangot, the coordinator of government activities in the territories, had met with Hussein al-Sheikh, the PA's minister for civilian affairs. They established a number of joint committees in order to coordinate on issues, it was said. One of these issues was renovation of the crossing into Gaza at Keren Shalom. This would include construction of infrastructure that would allow for the PA to take over control of the crossing. What??? Seems the US and the PA have pressured us for some time to allow the PA to control the crossings. This has been perceived as a way to give the PA a foothold in Gaza, which is Hamas-controlled. Until now, the IDF has opposed this because of security concerns. ~~~~~~~~~~ But, according to an "exclusive" on Friday in the JPost, "Since the government's decision last week to ease the blockade on Gaza (more properly: to allow more goods in via the crossings, as there was no "blockade" on land), the IDF understands that this is likely to be one of the next steps that Israel will have to take." "...that Israel will have to take." This deplorable mental set is what brings concession after concession. I write about lack of Jewish power in the US, but where is our sense of power? There is no "have to," there is only caving to demands. Undoubtedly, this is just one more thing that will make Obama happy when our prime minister comes calling. Making Obama happy should not trump security concerns. Ever. ~~~~~~~~~~ Then there was this flap: Last week Netanyahu, circumventing Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who was kept in dark, sent Industry, Trade and Labor Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, a certified left-winger, to Brussels for a clandestine meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu in order to clear the air or somehow improve the relations between the two nations. From two different Turkish newspapers, Zeman and Huriyyet, came different reports regarding Turkish demands for an apology regarding the flotilla, and then an alleged concession by Ben-Eliezer to consider making an apology and providing compensation for families of the injured. Ben-Eliezer's office subsequently denied that there was any promise of compensation, saying, "No one intends to do that, and the minister did not promise anything." Not anything? Not even a willingness to consider an apology? At any rate, Netanyahu presumably resolved the issue on Friday, when he told Israeli TV that there was no intention of offering either compensation or apology: "Israel cannot apologize for our soldiers being forced to defend themselves against the mob that almost slaughtered them. "We are sorry over the loss of life. This is clear." He then said that the idea of compensating those injured "...is not up for discussion." ~~~~~~~~~~ As to Lieberman — the straight-talker in the government — he had smoke coming out of both ears when he learned that he had been circumvented. He has no intention of quitting, he said, but will "make them pay" for his having been excluded. Netanyahu claims that he "explained" the situation to Lieberman, and everything is OK. Spin is everything. Netanyahu says, reassuringly, that his coalition is not in danger. Lieberman says he wouldn't give them the satisfaction of quitting. ~~~~~~~~~~ We may have heard the last on this issue, but then again, we may not. At a Labor party meeting today, Ben-Eliezer exploded at Ehud Barak, claiming that because he, Barak, was opposed to the meeting Ben-Eliezer had with the Turks, he had leaked false information about the meeting. A hot-blooded Iraqi, Ben-Eliezer told Barak's media person, "I'll skewer you. You don't know whom you're dealing with." Great. ~~~~~~~~~~ While...according to Al-Hayat in London (whose reports are not necessarily reliable), Obama intends to try to convince Netanyahu to accept Turkish demands for an apology. If this is true, we must fervently hope that our prime minister has the strength to stand strong on what he's said. The full Al-Hayat report alleges that Obama, in an effort to calm things down, has warned Turkey that its demand for a full international probe of the flotilla incident would be a "double-edged sword," as such an investigation would expose the relationship of Turkish passengers on the Marmara to the terrorist IHH. Who knows? ~~~~~~~~~~ Today, there were headlines alleging that PA president Mahmoud Abbas has agreed to forfeit claims to the Kotel and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. These claims were reported by the same Al-Hayat in London. According to this report, Abbas presented in writing to Mitchell an offer based on the proposals discussed at Camp David in 2000 (which Arafat rejected). This is said to include giving the PA 100% of the land area of Judea and Samaria, with a 2.3% land swap, and all of eastern Jerusalem except the Kotel and the Jewish Quarter. Additionally, a passageway from Judea and Samaria to Gaza would be opened. (That would be lovely: it would give Hamas greater access to Judea and Samaria.) The Prime Minister's Office had no comment on this report. Chief PA negotiator Saeb Erekat, according to the news agency Ma'an, did have comment: He denies that Abbas handed a written proposal to Mitchell. I believe he also denies the concession by Abbas of the Kotel and Jewish Quarter to us, even verbally. ~~~~~~~~~~ This I would definitely categorize as "pre-Netanyahu visit" hype: On Friday "senior US officials" said that "significant progress" had been made in the "proximity talks." Right. Dan Shapiro, a Middle East advisor to the (US) National Security Council, said both sides have engaged in all core issues. Last I heard, the two sides were discussing different things with Mitchell, with Netanyahu declining to discuss core issues until there were face to face meetings. ~~~~~~~~~~ One thing PM Netanyahu is holding out on is a refusal to concede more to Hamas in order to secure Shalit's release. This in spite of enormous public pressure being put on him. And I salute him for this. See here his press conference on the issue on Friday:
"The call to pay any price is a natural cry from the heart of any father, mother, grandfather, sister or brother. As a brother and son, I understand this cry from the bottom of my heart. But before me and before every Prime Minister in Israel, must also be the security of all the citizens of the state. "The State of Israel is prepared to pay a heavy price for the release of Gilad Shalit but is unable to say 'at any price.' This is the truth and I state it here." ~~~~~~~~~~ You might like to see Caroline Glick's latest satirical Latma piece on this subject. Tough and incisive, it makes the point that the huge outpouring of public concern does not help convince Hamas to release Shalit but, rather, convinces his captors that Netanyahu will have to cave in the face of the publicity and that holding firm is the thing to do:
~~~~~~~~~~ Tomorrow Netanyahu flies to Washington for meetings on Tuesday. After this long posting, I likely will not write again until after there is news from that meeting, such as that may be. Caroline Glick has written that the best our prime minister can do is buy time, by saying things such as, "Well, I'm willing to take this into consideration and discuss it with my cabinet when I return home." Hopefully, I have not made you all crazy with this posting, which at least provides a clear pictures of how frenetic and lunatic the situation is. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il
and visit her website:
|
|
A JEWISH UNDERSTANDING OF AMERICA'S DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
Posted by Yaacov Levi, July 4, 2010. |
|
This was written by Professor Paul Eidelberg, an Internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. Contact him at list-owner@foundation1.org |
|
The American Declaration of Independence embodies a doctrine of revolution. The Declaration teaches us that the people of any country are not obliged to obey the laws of the State if these laws violate the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." But who is to judge whether the laws of the State violate the "Higher Law"? This question involves another: "Where is the supreme authority in a State that recognizes a 'Higher Law'"? That crucial question was addressed by the Italian rabbi, theologian, and philosopher Eliyahu Benamozegh (1823-1900) in his magnum opus Israel and Humanity. Rabbi Benamozegh asks: "Where is supreme authority to be found in Israel?" To answer this question, he ponders the Law-Giving at the Sinai Revelation. He writes: In order to grasp the central idea of Israelite doctrine on this crucial matter quickly and accurately, let us proceed by a process of elimination and determine first of all what that doctrine categorically rejects.... Does supreme authority reside in a man invested with supreme power? The very idea of a Revelation which embraces all of life, public as well as priÂvate, precludes any such possibility. A Revelation so total cannot speak through any single entity whatever, whether priest or monarch. ... Neither the king nor the priest can possess unlimited authority, for each moves in a well-defined sphere and his function is circumscribed by impassable limits. Nor is supreme authority vested in a privileged class, an oligarchy or an aristocracy. The provisions of the Law, the history and concepÂtion of Revelation itself, prove, if proof be needed, that there can be no such class. Neither is it to be located in the totality of Israelites, at least not in the sense of an absolute power residing in the people as a whole, which would legitimize all that the people might decree. As for the authorized interpreters of the Revelation, however, the people convey their sovereignty in this matter to those whose place in the hierarchy renders them qualified, according to established rule. This role of the community is the only one which is logically possible in a state faithful to a Revelation. "If then, according to Judaism, supreme authority adheres neither to the high priest, nor to the king, nor to an elite, nor even to the entire people as a collectivity, where is it to be found? In God alone; which is to say, using modern categories, in absolute reason and justice. God is the only legislator, and the people His only interpreter on earth. Such is the Jewish ideal." The same conclusion may be deduced from the American Declaration of Independence. Suffice to consider two of its principles. Its First Principle inheres in these words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These rights are "unalienable" because man is created in the image of God, which means that man alone possesses free will and the capacity to distinguish good from evil. In other words: It is from God, and not from any Government or body of men, that we derive our rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Imago dei is what makes those rights "unalienable" and establishes them as basic ends of legitimate Government. Therefore — and this is the Second Principle: "Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." The people, therefore, are sovereign under God, which means, in the final analysis, that the People are His interpreters! However, since the phrase "any Form of Government" obviously includes Democracy, it follows that the People or their Representatives are theologically prohibited from establishing a Government or enacting laws that violate "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," or that violate "absolute reason and justice." We see here that the Declaration of Independence is basically consistent with Jewish law and provides no justification for the establishment of a secular democratic state! Having said this, let us put to rest certain errors. The "Creator" referred to in the First Principle must be construed as a theistic, not a deistic God, otherwise — and regardless of their personal convictions — it would have made no sense for the 56 signers of Declaration to appeal to "the Supreme Judge of the world," or to express their "firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence." Moreover, and of paramount significance in interpreting the meaning of the Declaration, its language should be construed in terms of the understanding of its audience, which was overwhelmingly Christian, consisting, therefore, of theists, not deists. Now consider the phrase "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." The term "Nature" is foreign to the Torah. Moreover, the notion of "Laws of Nature" suggests autonomous or self-sustaining and eternal laws, something impossible in a created universe. And since Greek philosophy never conceived of creation ex nihilo, let us put to rest the Stoic basis of the Declaration. The truth is that the Declaration is an eclectic but nonetheless magnificent document into which Jefferson injected Greco-Christian nuances, which Christian nuances, however, are rooted in the Torah, the source of monotheism. Evidence of this will be found in the law lectures of James Wilson of whom a brief statement is necessary. Wilson, who taught law at the University of Pennsylvania, was widely deemed the most learned man of his generation. Wilson was not only a signer of the Declaration of Independence. His contribution to the deliberations of the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787 was second only to that of James Madison. Moreover, like Rabbi Benamozegh, he regarded God's will, as interpreted by the people acting through their representatives, as the supreme authority. This means that the concept of "popular sovereignty" must be understood within the context of a monotheistic culture, and it is only within such a culture that can one rightly understand the American Declaration of Independence. One more thought. The Declaration, as Abraham Lincoln understood, embodies the political philosophy — more accurately the "political theology" — of the American Constitution. Here is what John Adams, another signatory of the Declaration, said of the Constitution: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." That religious morality is crystallized in the Declaration of Independence on which America stands and which is now being subverted. Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
HAPPY 4TH OF JULY!
Posted by Think-Israel staff, July 4, 2010. |
|
|
|
NUCLEAR CLOUD OVER OBAMA-NETANYAHU MEETING; US PR TACTIC
AGAINST ISRAEL; ABBAS STILL TERRORIST
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 4, 2010. |
|
NUCLEAR CLOUD OVER NEXT OBAMA-NETANYAHU MEETING PM Netanyahu will meet with President Obama, Tuesday, to publicize repaired relations, but a nuclear cloud threatens to rupture them again. The prior chill in relations presumably thawed, when Israel heeded the U.S. request that Israel relax its embargo of Gaza, and the U.S. imposed more sanctions on Iran. The new cloud gathered when the U.S. signed the document concluding the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty meeting, which singled out Israel. The document had no complaint about Iran, but urges Israel to sign the treaty, which calls for a nuclear-free zone in Mideast. An Israeli "official said his government received what it believed were assurances that the U.S. would reject the reference." The U.S. hag consulted with Israel over the text and had asked Egypt not to single out Israel. The U.S. nevertheless signed the document, and then deplored its singling out Israel. Israel "...saw this as another sign of unreliability by its most important ally." Defense Min. Barak already had complained about this to Israel. Reporter Mark Landler referred to "...Israel's deadly attack on a humanitarian aid flotilla sailing to Gaza..." (NY Times, 7/4/10, A1). The reporter reveals his own bias by calling the flotilla "humanitarian." As you can see from my prior article, humanitarianism was a front for removing the blockade in order for Hamas to be able to import heavy arms. Also, it was the Islamists who attacked the Israelis. A fair world would denounce the Islamists for that and would realize that the commandos killed some only in self-defense and after having suffered casualties. The newspaper has difficulty characterizing allies. What other ally has Israel? It has become obvious that President Obama generally has an anti-American foreign and domestic policy, from which he makes tactical retreats when his policy invokes too much opposition. The sanctions on Iran, ineffective as predicted, are a cover for inaction. The U.S. has betrayed Israel many times, as I have shown. Obama has betrayed several U.S. allies. His administration went out of its way to manufacture a rupture, until it received many complaints about its misconduct. I would put no stock in its new posture — it is temporary. Obama keeps his eyes on his radical strategy.
U.S. P.R. TACTIC AGAINST ISRAEL Shortly before PM Netanyahu was to meet with Obama, Abbas met with the Israeli media (and with U.S. Jewish leaders) to claim he wants peace. It is the same P.R. ruse that Clinton used to set up for Arafat. Every time the Israeli leader was to meet with Clinton, Clinton first set up an interview with the Israeli press for Arafat. Arafat proclaimed an interest in peace. The Israeli press, being anti-Netanyahu if not also anti-Israel, failed to check what Arafat was telling his own people. Usually his media did not mention such meetings. Instead, it advised its people that there can be no peace with Israel. The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) media told the people their duty was to destroy Israel. So, now, the P.A. media rebroadcast a mosque sermon that the Jews should be killed off. [Note, the sermon does not say "Zionists, it specifies "Jews."] Recently, P.A. TV reiterated the theme that all of Palestinian is exclusively its own, including the cities of Israel; it dozen't even say they are in Israel (Caroline Glick in Winston Mideast Report and Analysis, 7/4/10). Most people are not aware of the basic dishonesty of P.A. leaders and some U.S. Presidents. They do not follow events and analyze them, but do follow the line against Israel. Note how P.A. leaders envenom their own people! How do readers who profess to care about the Palestinian Arabs feel about P.A. leaders who trick their people into hating Jews and wanting war with Israel? What do they think of this deliberate spread of prejudice? Do they approve of U.S. Presidential duplicity? Can they see from this that there may be more to Israel's case than they realized?
INFLUENCES UPON TUESDAY OVBAMA-NETANYAHU MEETING Abbas said he would be ready for direct negotiations, when Israel agrees to all his negotiating positions. Obama seems prepared to urge the same course upon Netanyahu, when they meet. [This would leave nothing to negotiate and Israel without secure borders needed to maintain its survival, and lacking space in which to absorb additional Jewish refugees, and without its chief holy site. It may lose its reason for surviving.] The Obama administration had cajoled Israel into a temporary freeze on Jewish construction in Judea-Samaria with the argument that then Arab states would normalize relations with Israel and open 20 embassies in Israel. Did not occur. In fact, as soon as Israel announced the freeze, U.S. envoy Mitchell denounced it as inadequate. He wants Israel to destroy all its towns in Judea-Samaria. [That would ruin Israel economically and spiritually and would encourage radical Islam to feel it can defeat the West.] Now the Administration urges Netanyahu, and probably will demand it at their meeting, that he extend the one-sided, discriminatory freeze, on the grounds that Abbas would be ready for direct negotiations. False assurance, as you have just seen. The U.S. is lying to Israel, a second time, to sell it the same defective plan a second time. Netanyahu seems ready to fall for it, to appease Obama. He seems to be letting Barak, a leader of appeasement, do his negotiating for him. Netanyahu knows that his media would pillory him for seeming to cause a rupture with the U.S.. But actually, he is in a stronger position than Obama. Obama faces the prospect of losing control of Congress. If he seems to cause the rupture with Israel, his Congressional losses and his own prestige would get worse. Therefore, Netanyahu can easily reject Obama's demands. He just has to be firm (Caroline Glick in Winston Mideast Report and Analysis, 7/4/10). Can a jellyfish stiffen? Netanyahu almost always gives in, sooner or later to pressure. One wonders as much whether he is dedicated to Israeli security as one wonders whether Obama is dedicated to American security. If Netanyahu had courage, he would use his eloquence to smile, say nice things, and give Obama no excuse for denunciation of him, but explain why Obama's proposals would get Israel destroyed, and make sure Obama loses Congress. Trouble is, Netanyahu, far from being the right-wing nationalist as reputed, is going along with the pretense that Fatah can make peace.
ABBAS STILL TERRORIST Just a few weeks after assuring U.S. Jewish leaders that he would take steps to quell incitement against Israel, Abbas again eulogized a terrorist. This time, he praised the unrepentant mastermind of the PLO murder of Israeli athletes in Munich. Abbas had been part of the PLO terrorist apparatus. He paid the murderers (Arutz-7, 7/4/10). Note to readers: When I find a reader, who does not know me, making comments personal about me, guessing about me, and lying about me, and often making nasty comments in general, I delete them. Do not be shocked. I have given fair warning: behave like an adult, as for any newspaper, or have comments deleted. As for the value of the sources nasty and duplicitous people use, I would not waste time checking them out. I have read and reviewed enough anti-Zionist books, and report regularly on translations of the Arab media. Or haven't those critics noticed? Such readers do not discuss, they fight. One of their combat techniques is to distort whatever I write and miss the articles' points, in order to make their points or change the subject. They put words into my mouth, which is equally dishonest. So they write that I am "surprised" that the U.S. used P.R. techniques against Israel, and that I use P.R. techniques for Israel. I am not surprised, having figured out and written about deceit and improper publicity by the U.S. for years. I expose, report, and explain. One may disagree with my explanation. Can the disapprover counter-explain without being nasty? Few can, it seems. My explanation may be factual or evaluative, but it is not in the same league as the unethical presidents who sabotage their meetings with Netanyahu by setting up press conferences for PLO terrorist leaders to lie about their interest in peace. That is deliberate deceit. It does not appeal to my pride in what American should stand for.
JORDAN DAILY JOINS PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY AND HAMAS IN LIBELING ISRAEL Jordan's daily newspaper echoed the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) charges repeated recently that Israel is attempting to destroy al-Aqsa mosque. Hamas, like the P.A., calls on Arabs to defend the mosque from the Jews. The P.A. mufti accuses the Jews of "deviating from their humanity," in this (Palestinian Media Watch, 7/4/10) Never any evidence produced. Never any damage. Many accusations proved false, such as ones about excavation that really is a hundred yards from the mosque and about which Israel apprised Muslim authorities beforehand and without their objection until after the work started. On the other hand, I have reported deliberate damage of ancient Jewish artifacts by illegal Waqf construction at the al-Aqsa compound and careless building management of the mosque that threatened the stability of it or of the Mount. The libel is of a bigoted nature, particularly nasty in its ethnic abuse. It should be shameful, but anti-Zionists never seem to notice. The same kind of nasty libel is absent from the Israeli side. That the anti-Zionists also see never to notice. Sometimes U.S. officials talk about "hatred on both sides," but there is hatred only on the Arab side. Speaking of libel, some readers attempt to libel me by claiming that all I care about is Israel. They surely read my identifying American national security needs and by identifying victims of jihad all over the world. But vilifying Israel and all not opposed to it apparently is all they care about. They never discuss the problems for U.S.. national security that my reports raise. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
WHAT'S ON MY MIND: JEREMY BEN AMI, AFSHAN AZAD, YAZMIN BAUTISTA
Posted by Phyllis Chesler, July 4, 2010. |
|
J Street's Jeremy Ben Ami, President Obama's new "go-to Jew" (a young man who arose as suddenly and as swiftly as did our new President), had previously been Senior Vice President at Fenton Communications — the very company hired by Sheikha Mozah Bint Nasser Al-Missned, the wife of the Qatari ruler, to launch a campaign to wreck Israel's reputation. The blog Fresno Zionism, citing Kenneth Timmerman's excellent work, explains further: The campaign, known as the "Al Fakhoora Project," (named after a girl's school in Gaza that came under attack during Operation Cast Lead), has a very visible Web presence that boasts of rallying 10,000 activists "against the blockade on Gaza." Fenton signed the contracts, worth more than $390,000, with the Office of Her Highness ... and a separate foundation she chairs. Today their goal is to prevent the Jewish state from defending itself by creating a mass of public opinion that sees its self-defense as war crimes. Ben Ami's old outfit also represents many United Nations, human rights, and feminist groups (UNIFEM, Global Fund for Women, Planned Parenthood, Human Rights Watch, American Jewish World Service); political groups (Move On.org, Greenpeace; media (National Geographic); and foundations (Bill and Melinda Gates, Robert Wood Johnson). Oh yes, it represents Ben and Jerry's, The Body Shop, and, according to Fresno Zionism, it also represents CAIR. Thus, the smoothness and relentless funding of the media campaign against Israel is very much on my mind. As are two more things today. One, did you know that one of the actresses in the Harry Potter films, Afshan Azad, (who played the very lovely Padma Patil), was threatened with death and attacked by her father Abdul and her brother Ashraf Azad in an attempted honor killing? The actress lives in Manchester and was studying at school. This attack happened in late May but was only announced yesterday. We now know that her family was angry because of her relationship with a Hindu man (she is Muslim), but most of the original articles about the story failed to mention this motive for the attack. Afshan is lucky that she lives in England because they have the best police and law enforcement understanding of honor killings. I doubt Afshan will ever again be safe at home or even near home. Hat tip to author Nonie Darwish for calling this to my attention last night. 
Finally, yesterday I again spoke at length to the American-citizen mother, Yazmin Bautista, who is still trapped with her American-citizen daughter in Bahrain. Now, she is in hiding. Two court dates have not resolved matters any further. Her young daughter, Fatima, is terrified of her father's family and has hidden under a cafétable when she saw relatives approaching (who apparently did not know she was even there). Fatima has said: "I don't want to see my father. He will take me so that I will never see you (my mother) again." The girl has that about right. However, even the sharia court understands that Yazmin is not her husband's wife and that they were never married within Islam. They have ordered visitation with the father with two consecutive overnights. The mother has not complied and has essentially remained in hiding. Her lawyer tells her "not to worry." The American Embassy keeps promising to get back to Yazmin — but so far, they have not done so. Yazmin's lawyer has taken her case for no money (she has none). Bless that man. 
I have a small request. Is there an ex-Green Beret out there who might like to ride to the rescue? Or someone who owns a private plane, even a small boat, who might be able to help return two legal American citizens to their legal home in Arizona? Betty Mahmoody (who escaped with her young daughter from Khomeini's Iran), are you out there, are you listening, any advice you might care
Dr. Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's
Studies at City University of New York. She is an author and lecturer
and co-founder of the still ongoing Association for Women in
Psychology (1969). Visit her website at
http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/phyllischesler/
|
|
ISRAEL WITHOUT A PINCHAS
Posted by Yaacov Levi, July 3, 2010. |
|
This was written by Professor Paul Eidelberg, an Internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. Contact him at list-owner@foundation1.org |
|
There is no Pinchas in Israel today, no one whose paramount concern is G-d's honor. Pinchas was rewarded by G-d for his decisive action in killing Zimri and Kosbi. Zimri, a prince of Israel, was consorting publicly with Kosbi, a Midian princess steeped in idolatry. For his otherwise warlike act, Pinchas was rewarded with the Eternal Covenant of Peace — the Brit Shalom. How are we to explain this seeming paradox. In his commentary on Pinchas (Numbers 25:12), Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch's defines G-d's Eternal Covenant of Peace as "a state of the most complete harmony," and not only between man and man, but between man and G-d. He points out that, like the covenant or brit with Avraham, Yitzhak, and Yaakov, so the brit with Pinchas represents G-d's decision and promise that Peace will ultimately reign over the whole world. But meanwhile, mankind, rather than act in manner conducive to the "highest harmony of Peace," thoughtlessly hides its duty under the cloak of "love of peace." At the same time, it condemns those mindful of their duty to G-d as "enemies of peace." "Peace," Rabbi Hirsch continues, "is something highly precious, for which everything, all one's own rights and possessions may be sacrificed, but never the rights of others and never what G-d has declared to be right and good. True Peace of men with each other rests on the peace of all of them with G-d. He who dares to wage war with people who are against Divine Goodness and Truth is, in the midst of his fight and by it, fighting for the Brit Shalom on earth. He who, for the sake of so-called peace, quietly leaves the field to people who are at variance with G-d, his love of peace is at one with the enemies of the Brit Shalom on earth." Those who intone the love of peace with the Palestinians — Israel's adjacent Jew-haters — are the enemies of true peace, the enemies of the Brit Shalom on earth. There can be no peace without honor, and no honorable person will ever seek peace with Arabs who train their children to hate Jews and emulate suicide bombers. To desire peace with such villains is to lower oneself to the level of a dog that turns on its vomit. For my part, I desire peace only with trustworthy human beings. I do not want peace with treacherous barbarians who justify their barbarism in the name of Allah. Above all, I do not want peace with the enemies of G-d. Thus King David: "I hate them, O Lord, that hate Thee ... I hate them with utmost hatred (Ps. 139:21, 22). "They hold crafty converse against Thy people ... They have said: 'Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance.' For they have consulted together with one consent; Against Thee do they make a covenant; the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites ..." (Ps. 83:4-7). Would that this were the core of Jewish thought, action, and passion today. It is precisely because too many Jews are not actively concerned about the honor of G-d that they are humiliated by the nations, and now by their own government which treats them like children. Let us not be intimidated by fools and knaves who call us "enemies of peace." Let the media, that thrive on war, and that know nothing of truth and goodness, slander us as "war-mongers." Winston Churchill was also maligned as a "war-monger." Yet, it was not Churchill but "peace-lovers" like Neville Chamberlain who precipitated the most destructive war in history including the Nazi Holocaust. We have worse than Chamberlains ruling Israel today, for Chamberlain sacrificed Czechoslovakia, not his own country. Let us not even say we want "true peace" with our enemies — which is not to say I want war. Enough of the slogan "peace with security." Let us boldly and honestly say "We do not want peace with Arab despots and tyrannies, for such peace can only disarm our people and incite the wicked to make war. Ah for a Pinchas! "It was the honest brave act of Pinchas," writes Rabbi Hirsch, "which saved the nation and restored his peace with God and His Law and thereby brought back the basis for real true peace on earth." If we cannot find a Pinchas among us, let us at least stop seeking peace with those who revile us and plot our destruction. Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
OIL SPILL CATASTROPHE
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, July 3, 2010. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il and
visit
|
|
ANTI-SEMITISM IS MOVING INTO THE MAINSTREAM
Posted by Susana K-M, July 3, 2010. |
|
This is by Lior Zagury. |
|
My name is Lior Zagury and I'm a very proud Israeli Jew. Yes, it is important for me to present myself in this way, especially today when there is a feeling that there is a festival for anti-Semites. I just came back yesterday from Poland after 8 days of having the privilege of guiding the Inter Disciplinary university students in the death camps. These students, studying in Israel were Jews, Christians and Muslims. Five huge armed commando Polish soldiers with rifles and pistols needed to secure our check in to EL-AL flight to Israel from the Warsaw airport. I know that you got at least 100 e-mails about the flotilla to Gaza and I will not repeat what was said there. I want to speak about something much bigger that is happening now. The header of my letter wasn't taken from the streets of Berlin in 1933 when the Nazi's came to power, not from the neighborhoods of Warsaw in 1941 when the Jews lived in the Ghetto, and not even from the shops of Kielce after the Second World War in 1946, just before the pogrom that made Jews understand that there isn't a safe place for them and they need to leave Europe. The header was taken from signs that were hanged at the entrance to big markets and offices in Turkey in the past few days, in June of 2010 and similar signs that were hung in Jordan. The signs say: "We do not receive dogs & Israelis" as you can see in the photo. 
In his first speech at the German Reichstag at 1/30/1933 Hitler said the cause of all the world problems is world Jewry. Most of the people didn't take him seriously and felt very safe in their countries, trusting their governments. Twelve years later we lost 6 million Jews in the Holocaust in the worst way that human kind has ever known. These days, 65 years after, Achmadinijad from Iran and many others say exactly the same. The history repeats itself. Most of the people do not take him seriously and feel very safe in their countries, trusting their governments... This is a wake up call. If you will ignore it and convince yourselves that this is not the mainstream, this is just a passing storm and that it will never happen to us — sooner or later, you might find those restrictions in your backyard, in your favorite restaurant, in your great bar and in your amazing university as it was 75 years ago. A few months ago, an Arab restaurant in Haifa didn't allow Israeli soldiers to come in and eat. We need your support now more then ever. We need to raise our heads, speak in a very clear and loud voice and especially be one, united. I have a complete and strong confidence in our nation. Israel has the most moral army in the world, it is the only democracy in the world that in each and every given moment there are thousands of missiles and rockets ready to be launched to the central of its cities from enemies that want to erase us, and the only place in the world that a Jew can just be a Jew and feel completely safe about it. We promised NEVER AGAIN. Don't wait to say we didn't know. Yours,
Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com
|
|
"U.S. POLICY AND DEBATE ON THE MIDDLE EAST: WHATEVER HAPPENED TO ADULT SUPERVISION?"
Posted by Barry Rubin, July 3, 2010. |
|
If you take any given 24-hour period, it is amazing to see the drumbeat of silliness and misinformation prominently displayed and distributed by (formerly?) prestigious institutions. Let's take just four examples in the period just finished. First, Thomas L. Friedman is an expert on the Middle East. Unfortunately, however, he is only an expert on the Middle East as seen by the Washington DC establishment at any particular moment. This fact also requires him to jump around between contradictory positions. His gimmick this week is, "The Real Palestinian Revolution." Now one might call the way Hamas threw Fatah and the Palestinian Authority (PA) out of the Gaza Strip and turned that territory into a radical Islamist state is a real Palestinian revolution. Or one might say that a real Palestinian revolution would take place when Fatah, the PA, and Palestinian public opinion really changed toward accepting a two-state solution. Instead, his "real revolution" is merely a matter of image, as in the following paragraph: "It is a revolution based on building Palestinian capacity and institutions not just resisting Israeli occupation, on the theory that if the Palestinians can build a real economy, a professional security force and an effective, transparent government bureaucracy it will eventually become impossible for Israel to deny the Palestinians a state in the West Bank and Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem....It is the only hope left, though, for a two-state solution, so it needs to be quietly supported." By the way, it isn't clear that anything is really changing at all but rather that the whole big state-building campaign is purely a public relations campaign as this Carnegie report suggests. It would be a good thing, of course, if the PA did succeed in accomplishing these goals. Yet a number of cogent questions can be raised about Friedman's model. Let's suppose the PA failed to do these things. We can check in a year or two from now to assess what has happened. Most likely, nothing much would have changed. Perhaps the PA's modest progress to date would have collapsed in a new round of extremism and violence. So what if the PA failed? Would Friedman and the conventional wisdom in Washington switch to saying that Israel had no real alternative for peace and thus U.S. policy should back Israel? Of course not, they would merely find some new gimmick. Yet what if they succeeded in creating a marvelous stable, prosperous, democratic (does that mean there would be elections that Hamas might win?) entity. Would this mean that a state would result, should result, will result? Absolutely not. Because the issue is not whether there is more money or less corruption, the issue is whether the Palestinians are ready to make peace with Israel. This means: readiness to end the conflict, teach their people that they must give up their dream to getting all of Israel, provide security guarantees, and be willing to resettle refugees in the state of Palestine. Why should Israel give up territory and security to a PA merely because it prosecutes corrupt leaders (don't hold your breath) and is more prosperous? What Israel needs to know is that the conflict won't continue, there won't be cross-border raids, Hamas won't take over, and that Palestine won't invite in Syrian or Iranian military forces, to cite some examples. Friedman's proposition is ridiculous. And note how it is phrased, it will "become impossible for Israel to deny the Palestinians a state." In other words, Israel won't be convinced by Palestinian moderation and compromise but, presumably, by international pressure. That won't happen. But Friedman's formula reveals the PA's strategy: forget about making peace with Israel; just get international support for declaring independence on its own terms. Friedman recently endorsed this strategy when he used the phrase about friends not letting friends drive drunk to characterize Israel. The idea is that Israelis are too stupid to determine their own welfare so others must step in and do it for them. Yet when one looks at the idiocy of the debate being conducted int his framework, it is quite clear that the would-be dictators to Israel are the ones driving drunk. And it isn't just me saying this but lots of Arabs, Turks, and Iranians, too. Even Saudi King Abdallah made the point in a way that every Middle Easterner understands but which went over the heads of the "great geniuses" who think they should be running the Middle East. And one of the main ways they want to do this is to empower the radical forces that want to seize power and set the clock back by centuries. Second, the New York Times and Los Angeles Times seem to have a policy of running as many op-eds as possible by apologists for terrorism and advocates of engaging terrorist groups. Here's another one from the former newspaper, trotting out all the misrepresentative arguments by people who never say a word about the specificity of groups like Hamas and Hizballah, their goals, ideology, and personnel. This latest one is the kind of article that claims since the South African group, the African National Congress (ANC), became moderate why not Hamas or Hizballah? While it is true that the ANC had a military wing and engaged in some terrorism, that violence was very limited. The ANC was always led by a philosophy of peace and conciliation not-as in the case of its Middle Eastern counterparts-totalitarian dictatorship and genocide. By coincidence, I revisited the terrorism museum in Israel. There were some new features, including the cigarette lighter made in China and sold on the West Bank that shows the World Trade Center on fire when clicked. There is massive documentation on the involvement of Hamas and Hizballah in terrorism, antisemitism, anti-American views, and would-be genocide. One can see videos of kids in the Hamas schools carrying out military exercises. Watch this and then ask whether Hamas is intending to produce a generation of moderates. Revolutionary Islamism and terrorism, hatred for the United States and the desire to wipe out Israel (and Jews generally) are not some minor side issues for these groups but are absolutely central to their existence. It is amazing to think of these naïve people who think they are going to talk revolutionary Islamists into being moderates, or buy them off with money (there's that idea of prosperity solving all problems again) or concessions. Third, speaking of naiveté, there has been some stir about members of the official U.S. delegation to Syria making fools of themselves by twittering regarding the good time they were having. Syria is a repressive dictatorship. While these American ninnies were having nice cups of coffee, a few minutes' away prisoners were being tortured because they had criticized the regime. [Incidentally, in the kind of misdirection common today, coverage made it sound like only Republicans opposed U.S. engagement with Syria, with the subliminal theme: Oh, they're conservatives so we don't have to pay any attention to them! In fact, Democrats in Congress have also been opposed and increasingly shocked by Obama's Middle East policy.] When a U.S. official from the delegation says: "We made it clear that we want assurances that technologies sold to Syria won't be... used in ways to harm Syrian citizens," does he have any idea how ridiculous this sounds? Indeed, the more American delegations show up, the more peaceful dissidents get arrested. Finally, Hamas officials are now claiming that the Obama Administration is secretly contacting their regime. What is probably happening is that the U.S. government thought itself very clever to send some well-connected but not official figures to hang out with Hamas and explore getting along with a group that happens to be revolutionary Islamist, antisemitic, genocidal intentioned, repressive toward women, expelling Christians, waging terrorism, and acting as a client of Iran. Of course, they should understand that all this does is convince Hamas that the Obama Administration is ready to make a deal so there is no reason for it changing policy. All some Hamas leaders have to do is mumble a few words into the easily deceived Americans' ears and the fools will rush off to shout how these people are moderates (see the NY Times op-ed mentioned above). And of course the U.S. government makes itself subject to blackmail from Hamas which only has to reveal whatever conversations have taken place, with some creative additions and distortions. Thus, the title of the article about this issue, "Hamas says asked by US to keep silent on talks," illustrates that point. Let's be clear here. If you deal with Hamas, Hizballah, and Syria, you are dealing with thugs and murderers. Sometimes you do have to deal with thugs and murders but never forgetting that reality. And one thing you have to remember is that such people aren't going to make deals with you, keep their promises, become moderate, or respect your interests no matter how much you bribe or bow to them. At the terrorism museum there's a Hizballah poster that shows people giving money to Islamist charities, that money being turned into bullets, and those bullets being fired at Israel. That's also an accurate picture of the diplomatic "charity" being given to the enemies not only of the West but also of the Middle Eastern peoples they murder and oppress. Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and
"Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press).
His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).
Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at
http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html.
Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: ISRAELI AND AMERICAN JEWS
Posted by Arlene Kushner, July 3, 2010. |
|
A change of pace — there is time tomorrow for a return to the news, which certainly brings no great joy to the heart these days. Here I would like to share thought-stimulating highlights of a lecture delivered at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs on Thursday by Rabbi Dr. Edward Rettig, acting director of the American Jewish Committee, here in Jerusalem, on the differences between the Jewish identity of Israelis and Americans. ~~~~~~~~~~ Background summary: The Shoah (Holocaust) destroyed the cultural and demographic center of the Jewish world of that time period. What we are looking at today in terms of Jewish community is discontinuous from that earlier time — in that sense, revolutionary. Today 80% of Jews live in either the US or Israel, roughly 40% — give or take — in each place, with some 2/3 to 3/4 of diaspora Jewry living in the US. (As was noted during discussion, however, the Jewish population of Israel is on the increase, while the number of American Jews is decreasing.) These two Jewish population centers are very different from each other (and from the Jewish world of the past 2,000 years) and are working with entirely different language in terms of what it means to be Jewish. The language is shaped by values: the experience of being Jewish is different in Israel and America. Thus, while Israeli and American Jews need each other, they are lacking a common language for effective communication. There is a disconnect that has serious consequences. I touch here upon key differences. ~~~~~~~~~~ 1) Power. The Zionist movement is about Jewish power, and Israel today displays power as a nation, with all that this signifies. This means, to a large extent, physical power and the military. In America, Jews see power in terms of such things as political influence. Right now the American Jewish community is flowering. But there are concerns about continuity and the specter of Jewish powerlessness. ~~~~~~~~~~ My comment: It seems to me that some sold percentage of American Jews — even as they worry about powerlessness — are not quite comfortable with the idea of Jewish military power. That discomfort — which may not even be totally conscious — makes progressive or liberal American Jews, in particular, vulnerable to unease or embarrassment in the face of anti-Israel charges. It leads to a sense of alienation or disassociation from Israel. We Jews, in a world that is witnessing growing anti-Semitism, do not have the luxury of imagining, ever, that relative powerlessness is "OK." And I sometimes wonder if American Jews born since 1948 fully comprehend the increased reflected power that accrued to the American Jewish community by virtue of the founding of Israel. Dr. Rettig provided a significant perspective with this information: During WWII, 1.4 million Jews served in Allied armed forces. But those 1.4 million were spread among various forces of the allied nations. Thus, they found that they did not have the power to influence military thinking so that saving the Jews became a military priority — even with regard to such matters as bombing the railway tracks leading to the camps. A stark reminder of a crisis of powerlessness. ~~~~~~~~~~ 2) Religious legitimacy. America was founded as a Protestant nation. This means the center of religious legitimacy is seen as residing with the individual. American Jews absorbed this approach founded in individuation. Israel was founded by Jews who came out of a world that was untouched by the Reformation. Religious legitimacy is found in tradition and the words of religious leaders. Religious authority is normative. This merits some contemplation — it explains a great deal. ~~~~~~~~~~ 3) Constructing Jewish identity. In the US, this is seen as a choice. You don't want to be Jewish any more? You can opt out, assimilate, lose that identity. In Israel, it is seen as fate. You are Jewish. Fascinating: Israeli educators sent to the US to work with and motivate Jewish kids there have trouble speaking in terms they can understand. These educators know well how to speak to disaffected Israeli Jewish youngsters — how to get them to grapple with their Jewishness, which is a given, and to turn it into something positive. But reaching kids who have the option of simply walking away from their Jewishness is something else. ~~~~~~~~~~ 4) Secular Jews. This follows from the above. In the US, Jews who are devoid of religious feeling face a quandary as to who they are and what defines them. They are likely to meld into the majority, non-Jewish, culture. In Israel, a secular Jewish identity is not uncommon. For those who are secular, Jewishness is still part of their identity, as they are part of the Zionist culture. ~~~~~~~~~~ 5) Sacrifice and Memorialization Dr. Rettig's perceptions here stimulate not insignificant insights. In the US, Jews seek Judaism as a way to be happy or fulfilled. It's supposed to give the individual something. Women, for example, are exhorted to light Shabbat candles because they will find it a beautiful experience. American Judaism, additionally, is centered to a considerable degree in the present. In Israel, Jews see their Jewishness as an inheritance (the "fate" I spoke about above) that requires both looking backward, and the need for making sacrifices. American Jews have difficulty understanding or relating to this. American Jews at 18 and 19 are often having the time of their lives. Israelis at this age are in the military, undergoing rigorous training, and facing the fact that they may one day die in battle. The society as a whole accepts this reality. Dr. Rettig provided this startling statistic: The number of Jews in Israel who stand in silence for two minutes when the siren blows on Yom HaZikaron (Memorial Day for those who have fallen for the State of Israel) is greater than the number of Jews in the world who regularly light Shabbat candles. The memorialization is a significant part of the Israeli cultural ethic. ~~~~~~~~~~ Other thoughts raised in discussion following the lecture: In the US, Jews have to work against the majority culture to be Jewish. This statement resonated deeply with me — it's something I speak about frequently. Here in Israel, we are on Jewish time and in sync with Jewish mores. A large clock on a wall at the entrance to Jerusalem announces the time when Shabbat begins. Someone who has lost an immediate relative is automatically given time off from work for the shiva week (immediate mourning period). And on, and on... No conflict between living fully in the society and living fully Jewishly. There is an element of struggle in Jewish identity that disappears here — it's part of a more natural flow. ~~~~~~~~~~ The individuation of religious identity that is valued in American Jewry carries within it the seeds of this community's destruction. The American Jewish community is diminishing in numbers. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il
and visit her website:
|
|
U.S. ARMY: INTEGRATE AND ARM HAMAS AND HIZBULLAH;
GAZA BLOCKADE EFFECTIVE?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 3, 2010. |
|
U.S. ARMY: INTEGRATE AND ARM HAMAS AND HIZBULLAH The U.S. Central Command suggests that Hamas and Hizbullah are pragmatic, and should be integrated into the Lebanese and Palestinian Arab military forces, respectively (IMRA, 7/2/10). How unrealistic! To the extent they are pragmatic, they would join in order to dominate those forces. Hamas already did that in Gaza, shouldn't the US. Army know? "Pragmatic" is one of the most dangerously misused words of the English language. The other aspect of unreality is the pretense that the Lebanese and Palestinian Authority forces are not already under terrorist control. The U.S. should not be training either of those forces. Those forces serve aggression and jihad, and jihad is as anti-American as anti-Israel.
ISRAEL-ENEMY BALANCE OF FORCES Andrew Cordesman assessed the military power balance between Israel and its likely Arab adversaries. He says that the balance has been turning in Israel's favor. Israel has benefited from the peace treaties signed with Egypt and Jordan. Iraq is not involved, now. Syria is weakening in its conventional forces, due to fewer arms purchases and politics. Lebanon's regular military forces remain weak. Palestinian Authority forces pose no threat to Israel and in fact reduce terrorism. The U.S. continues transferring the latest arms and technology to Israel. On the other hand, Hizbullah has grown stronger. Mr. Cordesman wonders whether Hizbullah poses a danger to Israel or is interested only in internal matters. Israel retains the advantage in long-range air strikes, missiles, nuclear weapons, and defenses. Its enemies are improving their missile capability, but with inaccurate ones that just serve to inflict terror, unless equipped with chemical or biological weapons. Then he admits they have them, but he does not know their effectiveness. Iran and Syria cannot defend themselves well, unless they had S300 systems. Iran, he states, is several years away from devising nuclear weaponry. The unknown danger is that terrorist organizations may develop biological weapons. Dr. Aaron Lerner notes that Cordesman omitted the contribution of Saudi Arabia to the danger to Israel. Saudi bases are nearer to Israel than Egyptian ones. Saudi forces practice with Egyptian forces against a country east of the Suez Canal, meaning Israel. Why did Cordesman omit Saudi Arabia from the assessment? (IMRA, 7/2/10.) Actually, Cordesman omits a number of factors and scenarios. His assessment separates the different enemy forces, but suppose they coordinate? He acts as if Hizbullah is separate from the Lebanese Army. Hizbullah is turning into a modern army. He is wrong about the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) forces stopping terrorism. The P.A. encourages it, but is expanding its reach right now, rather than fighting hard with a smaller reach. It is becoming capable of sudden strikes that put mobilizing Israelis off balance while bigger Arab armies pull up. Yes, the U.S. arms Israel, but, contrary to what Cordesman states, keeps some of its advanced technology from Israel and not from the Arabs, while its aid to Israel forces Israel to curb some of its own innovations. Russia was about to deliver the S300 to Iran. It still may do so. Considering how small a country Israel is, terror weapons would be effective. Israel cannot stand a great loss of population. Iran and Syria may not need to be able to defend themselves, before starting a war. They may be satisfied with destroying Israel. Ahmadinejad may believe that the Hidden Mahdi will protect Iran. He is estimated by the U.S. as being only two years from having nuclear weapons. Suppose it is less? And when it gets them, what good would this assessment be? Syria has advanced chemical warfare capability. ISRAEL OPPOSES U.S. SALES OF JETS TO SAUDIS A deal is proposed for Saudi Arabia to buy scores of F-15 fighter jets from the U.S. and have the U.S. update the 150 it already has. The U.S. rationalizes the proposal as a means of neutralizing Iran. Israel opposes the proposal as a means of neutralizing Israel. Suppose Saudi Arabia turns on Israel, rather than on Iran? The U.S. is not supposed to sell weapons that change the balance of power. However, the law on that does not specify how this is determined. What the Defense Dept. does is routinely insert a disclaimer that the sale changes the balance of power, without a study (IMRA, 7/3/10). The way the Defense Dept. handles the law is like the Interior Dept. issuing a disclaimer that some project degrades the environment, without having made an environmental study. Such sales in recent years usually go thorough, so Israel usually does not bother objecting any more. That fact does not stop the antisemites from claiming that Israel dictates to the U.S.. Antisemitism is not rational.
GAZA BLOCKADE EFFECTIVE? Journalist Nicholas D. Kristoff visited the Gaza smuggling tunnels, to report on the effectiveness of the blockade. The hundreds of tunnels restocked the stores in Gaza, so that there cannot honestly be said to be a humanitarian crisis there from keeping food and medicine out. The blockade did depress manufacturing. Businessmen were unable to exert restraint upon Hamas. Indeed, workers became more dependent upon Hamas, which made money from taxing tunnels. Citing a representative of Gisha, a [leftist] Israeli human rights group, Mr. Kristoff says that unemployed factory workers blame Israel for their poverty. His conclusion: the blockade failed and Israel should end it entirely. The imminent easing of the blockade would reverse the multiplication of tunnels and the fall of the Gaza economy (NY Times, 7/4, Wk8). The New York Times, itself anti-Zionist, consults primarily leftist sources. That slants news articles to fit an ideology. So does omitting the purposes and context of the embargo one is judging. Here are the purposes and context. Israel blundered not only in evacuating from Gaza as a whole, but also in withdrawing from the Gaza-Egypt border, in particular. Had it kept patrolling the border, it could have detected the tunnels, keeping arms out and Hamas income down. Instead, it let Egypt monitor the border. Egypt winks at the tunnels. So, really, does Israel. Israel knows the locations of many, but bombs only one or two-at-a-time, and only in retaliation for a rocket launched at Israel from Gaza. Nor does Israel recognize that half the funds it provides the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) go to Gaza. Same for U.S. subsidy of the P.A.. Money is fungible. If you can't control the border, and if you subsidize the enemy, do not attempt a broad embargo, which subsidy undermines. Nor can you control a border when depending on an enemy to actually exert control. Objectives of the embargo: (1) Bar arms; (2) War tactic against enemy economy; and (3) Show a difference between the economies of Gaza and Judea-Samaria, to undermine Hamas. Kristoff does not mention the primary goal of an embargo he recommends dropping for what he is told is failure of its tertiary purpose. He is told it by anti-Israel leftists. As I have stated before, opinion in Gaza is difficult to ascertain. Some experts believe that Hamas has lost popularity. It would be too bad if the people there resent Israel for a measure against the terrorists they support. If they do, they are not an innocent people and deserve little consideration. The embargo has kept most heavy arms out of Gaza. That is a major success for the primary goal. Would Kristoff want heavy arms go to through to terrorist aggressors? They would go through, without the embargo. That is the reason for the Islamists and other extremists to mount a flotilla under the pretense of a humanitarian crisis that Kristoff admits did not exist. The secondary goal, to inflicted economic harm, worked, too. Did it also raise more money for Hamas by taxing smuggling, than Hamas lost from taxes on a better economy? Not in report. The tertiary goal, to show a difference between Hamas and Fatah rule draws a false distinction. Fatah has the same ideology of Islamic supremacy and conquest as Hamas. Nevertheless, that goal succeeded to the extent it could. Getting a favorable comparison for Fatah is difficult, because it remains corrupt and wastes much money on building its military. It is not clear what restraint Gaza manufacturers might have exerted on Hamas. Nor is it clear whether restraint on Hamas would benefit Israel. An unrestrained enemy is easier to recognize and resist, than a subtle enemy whom combines diplomacy and deception with violence. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
A PROFESSIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON TERRORISM
Posted by Susana K-M, July 2, 2010. |
|
This was written by Baruch Margolioth-Trappler M.D. |
|
In my book Modern Political Terrorism, I attempt to explain that there are usually three parties involved in domestic or political abuse.(Published by Richard Altschuler & Associates 2007). A model posing the triad of predator, victim, and caretaker, applies both at the individual or community level. Since Israel was established as a sovereign State in 1948, despite continuous boycotts and sanctions from the U.N., Europe and many of the African and Muslim States, it was always able to look to the United States as its lone reliable source of support, emotionally, diplomatically, and materially. Throughout the Jewish exile, protection of the Jewish nation by a benevolent "Super-Power" provided a certain respite after so many centuries of relentless persecution. Unlike Russia and China, after winning wars, the United States never attempted to convert, assert authority over, or impose its culture or religious beliefs over anyone. Not only did West Germany, Japan, and Western Europe thrive after WWII, but the United States also took it upon itself, at an enormous cost, to defend these countries against future threats. Furthermore, after the Korean War, she took a pledge to defend South Korea, in addition to her Defense Pact with Japan and Taiwan, to defend them against the threats posed by North Korea, a puppet state of China, and even China itself. South Korea would be swallowed up by North Korea and China were it not for the protection of the "Benevolent Superpower" — America. Israel also fell under this umbrella of "specially favored nation" status. The main point of this is that American goodwill, by and large, has provide a rare instance in contemporary history of good caretaker functioning. Considering the growing menace of communism by Russia and China, American caretaking of its weaker democratic allies required a lot of posturing, military innovation, and clever diplomacy to maintain a check on predators such as the Soviet Union. A testimony to that success is that the dreaded WWIII never happened. Despite the common belief that America was "always there" for the Jewish nation, I will cite two instances illustrating this to be somewhat of an illusion. One can begin by examining existing historical archives, such as the minutes of diplomatic exchanges leading to the summit held in Bermuda in 1942. December 17th, 1942 saw the announcement in the British House of Commons, the United Nations, and a declaration broadcast in 23 languages to all Nazi-occupied Europe announcing that the systematic extermination of European Jews had already claimed the lives of two million Jews. However, as thousands continued to be gassed each day using the poison Zyklon-B, London and Washington responded with a thundering silence. ("The Final Solution: The attempt to exterminate the Jews of Europe, 1939-1945" Gerald Reitlinger New York, 1961). This appears not to have escaped Netanyahu's attention when he spoke at a gathering on Holocaust Commemoration day at Auschwitz. He noted "that just a tilt of the wing" of Allied Bombers could easily have taken out the railways to the death camps. At a deeper level, Netanyahu was noting that this "negligence of inaction" during the holocaust did not go unnoticed. In Golda Meir's Autobiography (Futura Publications, 1975), it is apparent that the message communicated by Netanyahu was lost to her. For several weeks prior to the Yom Kippur War, Meir had become concerned about the continuous build-up of Syrian troops on the Northern Front and the rapid evacuations of Russian advisers. However, former Chiefs of Staff, Moshe Dayan and Chaim Bar-Lev, as well as the Americans, reassured her that the chances of a sneak-attack were "far from certain". Her suspicions remained so high, however, that she called an emergency meeting of the War Cabinet on Friday October 5. By eight o` clock on Yom Kippur night the meeting began. David Elazar, Chief of Staff, recommended mobilization of the entire airforce and four divisions. Moshe Dayan recommended a more limited call-up, arguing that a full mobilization before a shot was fired would provide the world with an excuse to call Israel the aggressors. Meir recounts that she would follow Dayan's approach of considering world opinion and showing restraint. "If we strike first we will get no help from anyone". She then called in the U.S. Ambassador, Kenneth Keating, for a meeting. "I told him two things: 1) According to our Intelligence, the enemy attacks would start late in afternoon 2) We would not make a pre-emptive strike. Maybe something could be done to avert a war by U.S. intervention". While they were still in the meeting, the military secretary burst into the room with the news that the shooting had started. On October 7th, a day after Israel was attacked, General Dayan returned from one of his tours to inform the Prime Minister that the situation in the south was "so bad that there should be a substantial pull-back". "The Egyptians had crossed the Suez Canal, and our forces in the Sinai had been battered". The Syrians had also deeply penetrated the Golan Heights. "On both fronts casualties were very high. There was also the burning question as to whether we should tell the nation how bad the situation really was". Meir continues: "I was calling Ambassador Simcha Dinitz in Washington throughout the day and night". Adds Meir: "The story has already been published of that delay. Of the U.S. Defense Department's initial reluctance to send military supplies-when all the time huge transports of Soviet aid were being brought by sea and air to Egypt and Syria". Israeli aircraft were being rapidly depleted, "not in air battles but to Soviet missiles". Two British authors, Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, in Dangerous Liaison, (New York: Harper Collins 1991), also explain what happened, but based on confidential information obtained from retired American and British intelligence sources. As a former prosecutor with the U.S. Justice Department's Nazi-hunting unit, John Loftus had unprecedented access to top-secret CIA and NATO archives. In their National Bestseller The Secret War against the Jews (John Loftus and Mark Aarons, 1994, St Martin's Griffin,1994), the authors inform us of the extent of a shadowy sub-narrative. I have extracted a small sample of this as it pertains to the 1974 Yom Kippur War: "The Arabs were oversupplied with weapons from the soviets, while the United States sat on their hands until it should have been too late". Meir states later in the memoirs in her memoirs that "Today I know what I should have done". The Investigative report by Loftus and Aarons based on the acquisition and decoding of top-secret documents, and twelve years of interviews with over five hundred former spies and Intelligence agents is difficult to refute. In fact, the failure to respond to Israel's needs at a time of mortal crisis during WWII was played out once again during the Yom Kippur War, and is more evident today than ever before. It corresponds well with Golda Meir's autobiography. Moreover, it serves as an illustration of how inadequate leadership by Israeli leaders (the nation's caretakers) during a time of crises placed the Jewish nation in peril. Golda Meir's failure to act decisively makes more sense when looking at the picture through the database of decoded U.S. Intelligence. To return to Aarons and Loftus: According to confidential interviews with former employees at the National Security Agency (NSA), "The Soviet Ambassador in Cairo was told by the Egyptians on October 3rd of Egypt's intentions to violate the ceasefire". According to these sources, "the Soviet Consulate's cables to Moscow were immediately deciphered by the NSA. Furthermore, according to former intelligence officers, the Nixon White House ordered the NSA to sit on the information. "We knew it (the sneak attack) was coming. We knew when. We knew where. We were told to shut up and let it happen." According to Loftus and Aarons, while front-line Israeli units were being crushed, Kissinger was conveniently absent, "sitting incommunicado at the Waldorf Astoria in New York". On October 12, oil companies sent a letter to Nixon that military aid to Israel would have a "critical and adverse effect on our relations with moderate oil producing Arab countries". "While the oil talks dragged on, Israelis were being slaughtered and the White House dithered. When the Jews begged for the spare parts they had been promised, they were told that no American Airline was willing to fly to a war zone". By the third day of the war, the American games had cost Israel heavily. Several thousand soldiers had died, and over 500 Israeli tanks destroyed, while Soviet SAM missiles continued to cripple the Israeli Airforce. At this point (October 8th), Commanders of the Israeli Army reported that in another four days their guns would fall silent. Moshe Dayan is reported to have said, "Everything is lost" (Hersh, "The Sampson option", Random House 1991 pg 223) and plans were made for Meir and her friends to commit suicide. (Dan Reviv and Yossi Melman, "The Complete History of Israel's Intelligence Community", 1989, pg 211). The Soviets, who had completely penetrated Israeli communications, were relaying to the Arabs the despair within the inner circle of Golda Meir's advisers. They were now encouraging the Arabs to press on for a knockout blow. The relevance of this narrative is to illustrate the extent of "Caretaker failure": Israel's leaders were more willing to commit suicide than save their nation — since the measures that were required to save the country would have involved upsetting the gentiles. In the Yom Kippur War, Israel was saved by the actions of Divine providence, primarily through the insubordination of a Righteous Gentile. According to former U.S. Intelligence Agents, White House Chief of Staff Alexander Haig, who had served in a Relief Camp in West Germany as a young officer following the liberation of Hitler's Death Camps, was sickened by what he saw. When Kissinger and Defense Secretary Schlesinger waited until October 10th to begin shipping supplies to Israel to commence on the 14th, Haig realized that Israel would be crushed before emergency military supplies ever reached the battlefront. "As a result, he began making policy behind Kissinger's back". The U.S Army had just developed a tube-launched, optically tracked wire-guided missile known as the T.O.W. Fired from a foxhole it could it could destroy a moving tank three kilometers away. The "kill-ratio" for the TOW was 97%. The information obtained by Loftus and Aarons continues that "While Kissinger and Schlesinger were playing games with Israel, Haig was stripping every TOW Missile off the eastern seaboard of the United States, and shipping them to Israel via Germany". Authorizing the release and distribution of Tows on October 14th could have cost Haig his career, since it was in total defiance of U.S. policy. As the Arabs opened their final assault on Israel, the TOWS were deployed for the first time by a country on the verge of defeat. The unexpected reversal in this final onslaught was a key element in changing the outcome in Israel's favor. Based on interviews with former Israeli Intelligence members and military attaches, Seymour Hersh concludes: "There was widespread rage toward the Whitehouse, aimed especially at Henry Kissinger-over what was correctly perceived as an American Strategy to delay the resupply as an attempt to let the Arabs win.... territory, self-respect, and a platform for serious land-bargaining"
The blueprint of this mythology is that Israel needs to "make painful territorial concessions" in order to earn the goodwill of the United States. Political Scientists and military strategists are welcome to comment on the results of the accumulative effects to date emanating from all of the Accords beginning with Camp David, through Oslo, Taba, the Wye Accords, and a liturgy of other concessions culminating in the evacuation of Gaza. This background history check shows a continued pattern of collective predatorial attacks followed by threats, demands, and further demonizing of the Jewish State. The ultimate genocidal plan, which I now see unfolding against the Jewish Nation, I would characterize as "Ideological Terrorism". I would like to apply the model of "Caretaker collusion and betrayal" to the policy which lures the victim into territorial and strategic concessions via a unified international threat of isolation. This form of blackmail is already in effect in the form of diplomatic isolation, scientific, academic, and military isolation, as well as economic boycotts. Despite endless land concessions, prisoner releases, and the dismantlement of security outposts, the world today stands unified in its collective moral support for Islamic terrorists. From the perspective of the relationship-dynamics underlying trauma, the State of Israel appears to continue its belief in the United States as the good "Caretaker" to the extent that it is once again willing to place itself in mortal danger. Once again she stands on the brink, preferring to use a "soft approach" to endear itself to whom? This is reminiscent of the "Stockholm syndrome" in which the hostage is willing to adopt the belief-system of his captor in exchange for the life that the captor continues to allow him.
This article is dedicated to Shalom Mordechai Rubashkin Growing up in South Africa, Dr Brian Trappler experienced something about Apartheid from a dimension that few outsiders know about. While his parents were politically "liberal", he was raised as an Orthodox Jew. Life was legally segregated but strong bonds existed between people of all races and ethnicities. While the extensive rural Afrikaans strongholds kept the country in a political chokehold, sustaining the rule by the white "Nationalist Party Government" educated Afrikaners such as the late Christian Barnard were politically liberal. The way Apartheid was practiced and enforced created the ambience of a Police State. There was also government control, censorship, and random house-arrests for political trouble-makers, who were often Jewish. This, in turn, stirred the coals of anti-Semitism by many in the Afrikaans community, who happened also to have supported Hitler's Nazi Germany during the war. But he felt, very much (despite this "political occupation") connected to the land where his Great-Grandmother, Sarah Margolioth, had made home after fleeing the pogroms in Poland in 1902. Attending WITS University in Johannesburg, Dr Trappler was mesmerized by the wisdom, dedication, and love-of-healing exposed to him at the Johannesburg General Hospital. Dr. Trapplar lives in the USA and practices psychiatry. Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
THE HORROR OF THE JEW GENE
Posted by Beth Goodtree, July 2, 2010. |
|
As anyone of the Hebrew faith knows, we Jews have been chased and murdered from pillar to post ever since the founding of our religion. And yet we survived an unrelenting onslaught that no one else was able to weather. The Egyptians of old — our enslavers — are no longer around, the Romans who crucified us or used us for fodder in their arenas are as dead as Judas Iscariot, the Inquisitors of the Catholic faith have gone to their respective Hells, and the Nazis no longer exist beyond a few isolated extremists who pose no substantive threat. How did we do it? We lived quiet lives, educating ourselves to become invaluable to the societies we lived in. But most of all, we blended in. And we've become great blender-inners. Many of us have translated our names into the local language (my father did just that, changing Feinbaum to Goodtree), most of us dress like the rest of society, and best of all, we look like everybody else. Most of us are Caucasian, running the gamut from fair to dark, from blonde hair to black. For the most part, we have become invisible as Jews unless we choose to announce our religion or are seen going to shule. However, even in today's society, there is still a caveat. While the Gestapo is no longer hunting us down, there is still a large amount of people who want to see us dead. Some Muslims and Muslim factions (al-Qaeda comes to mind), as well as the president of Iran, the KKK and other militant groups, would like to see us disappear. Luckily for us, they have few opportunities of carrying out their murderous intentions. But the unreasoning hatred is still there and we cannot count on it going away any time soon if at all. Altogether though, our greatest defense has always been the ability to adapt and blend in. Now, for some of us, this is no longer true. Several weeks ago it was announced that a gene specific to the Cohan tribe was discovered. People were jubilant. Science had proved what we had known only through word of mouth from parent to child — that there was a specific group of Jews — the Cohanim — that was separate from another specific group of Jews — the Levites. For those of you who don't know, there are 2 main surviving tribes of Jews out of the original 12: the Cohan tribe and the Levi tribe. (Recently, a group of Ethiopians who are descended from King David have been acknowledged, but they are a small group and they are Black, whereas the Cohanim and Levites are Caucasian.) Despite the best intentions, scientific advances can either be used for good or evil. A prime example is atomic fission. Using it, we can either make bombs or supply electricity to our towns and cities. The discovery of a gene specific to a group of Jews is no exception. Suppose that at some future date a person like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (the rabidly anti-Semitic president of Iran) decides they want to wipe out all the Jews in their country or area. Right now, all they need do is a simple blood test to find all the Cohanim. And if you think I'm being alarmist, remember that many people never thought the Holocaust could happen and so they stayed in Germany, Poland and Austria, only to be exterminated. History has taught me never to underestimate the depths of depravity to which some people will sink, especially when it comes to religion or race. And speaking of race, I do not doubt that some people will use the discovery of the Cohan gene as proof that Jews are a separate race. In closing, I urge any scientists working on such genetic projects not to look for a Levite gene. We know who we are and the potential for abusing such knowledge is too great to risk for satisfying some curiosity. Beth Goodtree is a writer, fine artist and cancer survivor. Contact her by email at BethArt6@AOL.com |
|
ANOTHER TACK: ISOLATION I — HOW NOT TO BE ILL
Posted by Sarah Honig, July 2, 2010. |
|
There was a rapturous turkey trot in old Turkey the other day. Led by President Abdullah Gul, the Turks and their guests jumped for joy and did their springy one-step to celebrate Israel's obvious ostracism. "This is a clear manifestation of how Israel isolated itself," Gul, who chaired the summit of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia, exulted. Twenty-one of CICA's member-states (with the single exception of Israel) "deeply deplored" its interception of the Gaza-bound Mavi Marmara. In unwavering unison, such gracious paradigms of international fair-mindedness and evenhandedness as Presidents Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Bashar Assad of Syria and Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan — as well as Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and PA figurehead Mahmoud Abbas — all "expressed their grave concern and condemnation for the actions undertaken by Israel" and denounced its "blatant violation" of international law. Reveling in ostensible rectitude, Putin warned: "We can't allow a new flame to flare up in the Middle East." Gul laid righteous indignation on thick by announcing: "It is impossible for us to forgive the bloodshed." Similar spectacles are reenacted on some scale or another almost around the globe. No self-respecting city, campus or festival can resist garnering glory by whacking Israel. It's a grand batter-Israel bash and a hit show wherever it's staged. The plotline uncannily resembles that of Swiss playwright Friedrich Dürrenmatt's now-classic 1956 tragicomedy The Visit. The allegorical setting is the hard-luck town of Guellen (guelle in German means soggy excrement) to which much-married native-daughter Claire Zachanassian returns, now an elderly bizarre multibillionaire. Guellen sorely needs a cash transfusion, but Claire quickly clarifies that her generosity has strings attached. She'll bestow great affluence on Guellen's denizens if they only put to death the lover she claims jilted her in her youth. At first the townsfolk refuse to kill Alfred Ill, now the respected general-store proprietor. But Claire knows — precisely as do the real world's cynical oil-rich Arab/Muslim master manipulators — that everything is for sale, supposed virtue foremost. Claire's predictions are soon borne out. One by one Ill's neighbors abandon him in a grotesque display of hypocrisy. Despite their alacrity to appease and profit, they continue to posture as morally upright — like members of the international community vis-a-vis Israel — and blame the victim for a monstrously magnified set of "unforgivable" sins. In no time Ill becomes the object of intense revulsion, regarded as the source of all that ails Guellen. The townspeople refuse to forgive Ill for the collective suffering he "caused" them. There are no bounds to the lengths they'll go to rationalize and justify their greed. Sounds familiar to us defamed and demonized Israelis?
GUELLEN'S INITIALLY principled mayor is the very one who swings public opinion against Ill and in the end offers him a gun so that he may spare everyone angst and end it all "peacefully." When Ill seeks succor from the priest he discovers that the "man of God" too has sold his soul. The policeman — akin perhaps to international peacekeepers in our own mind-blowing saga — refuses to protect Ill, denying that he is in any jeopardy at all. He hurls invective at him and traps Ill in the auditorium, there to be slaughtered. The town's doctor, one of Guellen's better sorts, eventually collaborates in the murder and, in his professional capacity, determines that Ill died of a "heart attack." Perhaps the most stinging betrayal is that of the "humanitarian" schoolmaster, the archetypal well-intentioned intellectual, who holds on to his values longer than the others — a bit like America in our case. He had attempted to intercede with Claire and then to expose her villainy. Eventually he tells Ill that his neighbors all turned into predators, who cannot be opposed personally by one educator. Presumably poor hounded Ill could at least rely on his own family, like we Israelis assume we can rely on our Jewish brethren out there in the world's big real-life Guellens. But both Israelis and Alfred discover otherwise. Among the ranks of our brethren abroad are indifferent, well-off Jews who don't want to be bothered with our niggling, never-ending travails. Worse yet are trendy sophisticated ultraliberals for whom Israel has become an embarrassing burden. Apathy and/or antipathy toward Israel can accrue assorted potential rewards for estranged Jewish types overseas. So it was for Ill's kin. His son Karl and daughter Ottilie, both originally unemployed, attain inexplicable prosperity. Bottom line: Israel is indeed isolated but that's only because it's cast as the Alfred Ill of the worldwide farcical extravaganza. We're alone only because Arab/Muslim clout and wealth successfully bribe, corrupt and brainwash bona fide democracies and apparently free-thinking journalists into voluntary, even avid complicity in the attempted delegitimization of Israel. Longer-term genocidal plots needn't be explicitly admitted and proclaimed, but the groundwork for mass murder is being methodically prepared.
THAT SAID, we needn't consider ourselves as heading deterministically for Ill's bitter end. Nothing is preordained. Our self-preservation hinges on not obscuring the realization that our detractors are the duplicitous self-serving equivalents of Guellen's avaricious inhabitants. It's crucial that we understand that we are vilified and targeted as part of a scheme as sinister as that which led to Ill's premeditated slaying. We can prevent our own tragic demise by deviating consciously from Ill's path. Although his nice-guy demeanor went unappreciated by the voracious chorus that bayed for his blood, Ill accepted his fate. He forgave his family and submitted meekly to the death sentence maliciously meted out to him. We mustn't submit to slander by outright enemies like Ahmadinejad or Recep Tayyip Erdogan, but neither must we respectfully bow down to the judgments of the Barack Obamas, Nicolas Sarkozys or Putins who undercut our survival prospects. It's up to us not to be Ill. The antidote to the Ill-effect is remaining convinced of our inner truth. In our case a dose of Dürrenmatt ought to be followed up by a morsel from our own poet Natan Alterman. A founder of the Land of Israel Movement, Alterman was acutely pained by the fact that (already in his day) doubts began to be cast on the legitimacy of Israel's existential struggle, portraying it as the aggressor and dismissing Jewish claims to the Jewish homeland. To him these were dark omens portending a Jewish mental aberration that could precipitate Israel's downfall. After his death in 1970 several unpublished works were discovered in his literary estate. The most evocative of these poems, "Then Satan Said" (which I translated), became his heavy-hearted, somber last legacy. There Alterman conjured an allegorical evil stratagem in which: ...Satan then said:
Sarah Honig is a columnist for Jerusalem Post.
This is the first of a two-part series.
|
|
WHAT SIEGE ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT?'; 'THE
EGYPTIAN PEOPLE SHOULD] PRAY TO ALLAH TO SMITE THEM WITH [SUCH A] SIEGE'
Posted by MEMRI, July 2, 2010. |
|
In his column in the Egyptian daily Rooz Al-Yousuf, dated June 29, 2010, Muhammad Hamadi gave statistics from a Hamas website showing that despite all the talk of a siege on the Gaza Strip, and in contrast to claims that Egypt has a role in starving the Palestinian people there, so many goods are streaming into Gaza that supply is greater than demand — and that as a result, produce, poultry, and beef are cheaper there than in Egypt. He concluded that life under siege in Gaza is easier than it is in Egypt, where the people would love such a siege. The following are translated excerpts from the article: Hamas Has "Turned to Resistance Online and In the Media" "After the [Hamas] movement abandoned the real resistance and turned to resistance online and in the media, one of Hamas's many websites published an important report comparing prices of goods and produce in Egypt and in Gaza. "The report states: A kilo of watermelon in Gaza costs less than one Egyptian lira, while in Egypt it costs over two lira; a kilo of tomatoes in Gaza costs less than half a lira, while in Egypt it costs 1.5 lira; a kilo of potatoes in Gaza costs half a lira, while in Egypt it costs two lira; a kilo of onions in Gaza is one lira, while in Egypt a kilo of onions is 1.5 lira; a kilo of garlic in Gaza is 10 lira, while in Egypt it is 15 lira. "A kilo of chicken in Egypt is 20 lira, and in Gaza it goes for only 10 lira. The average price of a kilo of beef in Egypt is 60 lira — while in besieged Gaza it goes for five lira. A tray of eggs in Egypt is 19 lira, while in Gaza it is only 10 lira." "What Siege Are They Talking About?" "This comparison of prices between Egypt and Gaza, which has been under siege for three years, as they say, shows that life under siege is cheaper, more convenient, and easier... "So what siege are they talking about? Does the siege cause prices to drop? And how are goods flowing into Gaza despite the siege? ... "These questions are not being raised [here] in expectation of an answer from Hamas, but they are directed at all Hamas supporters in Egypt who see nothing wrong with accusing their own country of betraying the Palestinian cause and of starving the helpless Palestinian people with the oppressive siege on Gaza. "If this is what it's like in Gaza under siege, then the Egyptian people, who have been burned by the fire of prices and who peel off part of their limited income to save the besieged Gaza residents, [should] pray to Allah to smite them with [such a] siege, if the seige will lead to lower prices and make it possible for every common citizen to buy eggs, meat, and poultry like the Gaza residents do."
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent,
non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the
Middle East. Contact MEMRI at memri@memri.org and visit their website:
|
|
CONSPIRACY
Posted by Susana K-M, July 2, 2010. |
|
Netanyahu must play for time This is by Caroline B. Glick |
|
Leaked Washington memo, days before Bibi heads to Washington, only reinforces proof of the obvious Just ahead of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's trip next week to Washington, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas went on a charm offensive towards the Israeli media. On Tuesday Abbas invited representatives of the Hebrew-language press to his office in Ramallah and assured them of his good intentions towards Israel. We have been here before. In Netanyahu's last go-around as Prime Minister, it seemed like every time he was due to visit Washington, then president Bill Clinton's advisors would set up a meeting for Abbas's predecessor Yassir Arafat with the Israeli media. Arafat would talk about how much he wanted peace with Israel, and how he was just waiting for Netanyahu to agree to embrace the cause of peace. The peace-crazed Israeli media enthusiastically reported Arafat's lies to the Israeli people without questioning either Arafat's motives or his honesty. Has they exhibited even a minimal amount of journalistic competence, they would have at least checked to see what the Arafat-controlled Palestinian media was reporting about their meeting with the "Rais." But that would have ruined their Netanyahu-bashing narrative. And so the Israeli public was denied knowledge that not only did the Arafat-controlled Palestinian media fail to report their meeting, Arafat's newspapers and television broadcasts routinely told the Palestinian people that there could be no peace with the Jews. Indeed, they daily exhorted the Palestinians to view the destruction of Israel as their greatest goal. In a similar manner, this week as Israel's newspapers published ecstatic headlines about Abbas's moderation and desire for peace, the Abbas-controlled Palestinian media made no mention of the meeting. Moreover, in recent weeks, the Abbas-controlled Palestinian media have been intensifying their incitement against Israel and Jews. As Palestinian Media Watch reported this week, on Tuesday Abbas-controlled PATV aired a sermon by the PA's Mufti Sheikh Muhammad Hussein. The mufti said, "The Jews, the enemies of Allah and of His Messenger, the enemies of Allah and of His Messenger! Enemies of humanity in general, and of Palestinians in particular... The Prophet says: 'You shall fight the Jews and kill them...'" Similarly, last week PATV re-broadcast a "documentary" film in which all of Israel is described as "occupied Palestine." In one excerpt cited by PMW, the film's narrator asserts, "The West Bank and Gaza have another section in Palestine which is the Palestinian coast that spreads along the [Mediterranean] sea, from ... Ashkelon in the south, until Haifa, in the Carmel Mountains. "Haifa is a well-known Palestinian port. [Haifa] enjoyed a high status among Arabs and Palestinians especially before it fell to the occupation [Israel] in 1948. To its north, we find Acre. East of Acre, we reach a city with history and importance, the city of Tiberias, near a famous lake, the Sea of Galilee. Jaffa, an ancient coastal city, is the bride of the sea, and Palestine's gateway to the world." Tuesday, the moderate Abbas told his Israeli guests that he's ready to hold direct negotiations with Netanyahu as soon as the premier gives him his positions on borders and security. As Abbas's full statement made clear, what he means by that is that he will negotiate with Netanyahu after the latter agrees to adopt his predecessor Ehud Olmert's position on borders and security. Those positions included an Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines — including the division of Jerusalem — and the stationing of foreign forces along the border with Jordan. For its part, the Obama administration is putting its own pressure on Netanyahu to make Abbas — and US President Barack Obama happy. Over the past several weeks the administration has been pressuring Netanyahu to extend the ten-month prohibition on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria beyond its scheduled September end date. As a sweetener to help Netanyahu swallow this strategically and politically disastrous pill, Obama and his aides claim that an extension of the draconian, bigoted policy would serve as a confidence building measure to convince Abbas to begin direct negotiations with Israel. In Obama's bid to convince Netanyahu extend the Jewish building ban we see the foreign policy equivalent of a used car salesman's attempt to sell the same customer the same lousy car twice — using different lies each time. Last year, Obama and his advisors justified their demand that Netanyahu act to strangle the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria by claiming that doing so would make the Arab world to begin normalizing its relations with Israel. Obama's Jewish surrogate former congressman Robert Wexler told Netanyahu last July that in exchange for barring Jews from building kindergartens in Israel's heartland, Israel would see twenty Arab embassies opening in Tel Aviv. Of course not only did that not happen, moments after Netanyahu announced the prohibition on Jewish building, Obama's peace mediator George Mitchell claimed that his massive and unprecedented concession was insufficient. Channeling Abbas, Mitchell declared that the US expects Israel to agree to destroy all the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines. Weeks after Netanyahu's concession in Judea and Samaria, the administration began its onslaught against Jewish building in Jerusalem. As the minutes tick by towards Netanyahu's visit with Obama at the White House, Netanyahu is signaling that he is willing to buy the same used car a second time. Although Netanyahu continues to insist that he will not accept preconditions for negotiations, he has empowered Defense Minister Ehud Barak to take a leading role in contacts with the PA. Wednesday Barak announced that he will be holding direct talks with Israel-boycotting PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in the coming days. Earlier this week Barak effectively announced his support for an Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines even without a peace treaty. In a media interview Barak claimed that that the unilateral withdrawals from Gaza and South Lebanon were great achievements that should be repeated. Netanyahu's desire to avoid a confrontation with the Obama administration is understandable. Given the nature of the Israeli media, Netanyahu would certainly pay a political price if he were to be blamed for making the administration turn against Israel. But the truth is that today more than ever, Obama shares Netanyahu's desire to avoid an open clash. The midterm Congressional elections are just four months away and Obama's Democratic colleagues are running scared. Polls show that the Democratic Party is likely to lose control over the House of Representatives. The Democrats will also likely see their control over the Senate weakened if not lost. As the Wall Street Journal's political analyst John Fund reported this week, out of 70 competitive Congressional districts, the Democrats will likely lose 60 and so lose control over the House. Going into such a problematic electoral season, the last thing Obama needs is an open confrontation with Israel. A new row with Netanyahu will not only harm Democrats in key states like Florida, New York, New Jersey, Illinois and Pennsylvania. It will harm the Democrats' fundraising efforts among Jewish American donors. Over the past several months there have been repeated reports that Jewish Americans are drastically cutting back their donations to Democrats. The current trend will likely escalate if Obama forces Netanyahu into a corner next week. What this means is that Netanyahu is well placed to stand up to Obama's pressure. If he plays his cards wisely, he can say no to Obama and avoid an open confrontation. For instance, instead of agreeing to extend the building prohibition, Netanyahu should say that he is willing to discuss that demand in face-to-face negotiations with Abbas. Rather than agree to Abbas's preconditions, Netanyahu should say that he is willing to listen to Abbas's position in face-to-face negotiations. And so on and so forth. Such statements by Netanyahu will take the pressure for making concessions off him and put Obama and Abbas on the spot. Even more importantly, it will buy Israel time. And buying time should be Israel's chief goal with respect to Washington today. Since taking office, Obama has repeatedly demonstrated that he will not reconsider his fundamentally hostile view of Israel. Obama's basic belief that Israel's strength and size are to blame for all the violence and radicalism in the Arab world is not subject to change regardless of how clearly and continuously events on the ground prove it wrong. Even worse for Israel, Obama is not alone in this view. Indeed, as a report in Foreign Policy this week makes clear, Obama's position on Israel is moderate when compared to the positions being staked out in influential policy circles in the US military. Wednesday Foreign Policy published the content of a memo written last month in the US Military's Central Command. The memo, a "Red Team," assessment of how the US should position itself vis-a-vis the likes of Hamas and Hizbullah, reveals that among key members of the US policy-making community, Israel is viewed with extreme hostility. The leaked memo reportedly reflects the views of a significant number of senior and mid-level officers in Centcom, including large numbers of intelligence officers, as well as a significant number of area analysts stationed in the Middle East. It argues that it is wrong for the US to lump jihadist movements like Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaida and Hizbullah in one group. Dismissing the significance of the identical religious dogma that stands at the root of these movements, the memo asserts that Hamas and Hizbullah are pragmatic and important social forces with which the US must foster good relations. The memo calls for the US to support the integration of Hizbullah forces into the Lebanese military. It also calls for the US to encourage and permit the integration of Hamas forces into the US-trained Palestinian security forces. As far as Israel is concerned, the memo blames the Jewish state for the US's failure to date to adopt these recommended policies. Moreover, the memo's authors condemn Israel's maritime blockade of Gaza as keeping "the area on the verge of a perpetual humanitarian collapse." The Centcom memo also condemns Israel's July 2006 decision to respond to Hizbullah's unprovoked bombardment of northern Israel and its unprovoked cross-border attack against an IDF patrol in which five soldiers were killed and two were kidnapped and subsequently murdered. Denying Hizbullah's subservient relationship with the Iranian regime, the report claimed that Israel's decision to use force to defend itself against Hizbullah's acts of war served to strengthen Hizbullah's ties to Teheran. What this memo shows is that Israel has little hope of seeing a change for the better in US policy in the near future and its best bet today is to play for time. Next week at the Oval Office Netanyahu should capitalize on his advantage four months ahead of the Congressional elections and put the burden on Obama and Abbas to show their good intentions. Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
THE WAITING FOR GODOT SYNDROME
Posted by Yaacov Levi, July 2, 2010. |
|
This was written by Professor Paul Eidelberg, an Internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. Contact him at list-owner@foundation1.org |
|
The "Waiting for Godot Syndrome" (WGS) permeates Israel — opinion-makers and policy-makers, left and right. Enough of this theater of the absurd. Some politicians and pundits are waiting for America's November elections in the hope that the Democrats will lose control of the House of Representatives and perhaps even the Senate. Fear of this eventuality, they imagine, may induce Obama to slacken his pressure on Israel. So they urge Netanyahu to play for time when he goes to Washington next week. As if Obama will not revert to type. Netanyahu himself has been infected by the WG syndrome. He is hoping Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas will forsake 1,400 years of Islamic culture and agree that "reciprocity" should be the basis of negotiations between Arabs and "infidels" — whereby the latter yield land and the former recognize (what's left of) Israel as a Jewish state. Meanwhile, animated by the belief that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's vow to wipe Israel off the map is mere rhetoric, other Waiting for Godot addicts hope economic sanctions will delay Iran's development of nuclear weapons, or that the U.S. will at last step in and save Israel from a Holocaust. The Waiting for Godot Syndrome recalls the adage that hope springs eternal in the human breast. The Greek philosophers did not deem hope a virtue, and great military leaders deem it a vice. You have a genocidal enemy, a total enemy. This kind of enemy doesn't compromise; this enemy equates compromise with cowardice. Therefore, one way or another, you take the initiative. You go on the offensive. You go for the kill. You employ every device you have to accomplish this objective, including propaganda, espionage, insurrection, economic warfare, assassination. Your goal is to destroy the enemy before he attacks you. You don't lose sleep over public opinion. You know public opinion is fickle. You know that for the generality of mankind, success is the ultimate criterion of praise and blame. Besides, you'd rather be feared than loved. You are not waiting for Godot. On taking the initiative, consider what journalist Yaakov Katz says of Meir Dagan, who is stepping down from his position after eight years as Mossad chief. Dagan is credited with orchestrating a string of assassinations around the world.... In February 2008, a car bomb killed Imad Muhjniyeh, Hizbulah military commander in Damascus. Later that year, Gen. Muhammad Suleiman, Syrian President Bashar Assad's liaison to Hamas and Hizbulah and the head of the country's covert nuclear program, was shot dead by a sniper at his vacation home in the port city of Tartus. In January the Mossad reportedly struck again, killing Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, the Hamas arch-terrorist in Dubai (Jerusalem Post, July 2, 2010). In this context, bear in mind the assassination of Israeli cabinet minister and former general Rehavam Ze'evi in October 2001 by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a faction of the PLO. The point is that Israel is at war, declared against Israel by all Arab and Muslim regimes. This is blatantly evident in their state-controlled media, including those of Egypt despite its peace treaty with Israel. The Arabs will exploit every sign of weakness; and they deem it a profound weakness when Israeli prime ministers are anxious to engage in peace-negotiations. To counter the appearance of any such weakness, Israel must instill fear in Arab leaders by violent and well-orchestrated covert operations. Moreover, Israel must not retreat from any Jewish territory. It must not release Arab terrorists. And for every attack on a single Jew it must retaliate at least ten-fold against the enemy consistent with the Jewish idea of "proportionality." We are dealing with a ruthless foe. Against such a foe, liberal humanitarianism is a nauseating obscenity. Remember the Allied fire-bombing of Dresden, which killed more civilians than the A-Bomb on Hiroshima. Was America then threatened with annihilation as Israel is today? And did American ruthlessness vis-à-vis Germany and Japan persist and corrupt America after the war? Did it prevent America from helping them rebuild their devastated counties? Israel must adopt a wartime image to teach its own people — especially academics and journalists — that at stake today is their own survival. This image will inform the enemy that the "peace process" charade is over, that Israel is no longer going to play according to anti-Jewish the rules of engagement. Israel is not going to wait for Godot or stall for time waiting for America's November elections. Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
IDF FEATURE: TENACITY AND TALMUD
Posted by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz, July 2, 2010. |
|
Overlooking the conference table in the Academic Board Room at West Point, the famed American military academy, there stand the statues of three Jewish warrior-scholars — Joshua, King David and Judah the Maccabee. When leaving West Point, head east, cross the Atlantic Ocean, travel the length of the Mediterranean Sea, come ashore on a Tel Aviv beach, and then make your way towards Jerusalem. About half-way to the holy capital city of Israel you will come upon the city of Modi'in — the revitalized hometown of that same Judah whose statue graces the board room of the United States Military Academy at West Point. And it is here, in the modern city of Modi'in, that new Maccabees are being shaped daily — living, breathing Maccabees, not stone carvings. The institution turning out those scholar-warriors is the Meir Harel Yeshiva, a Hesder yeshiva (one of a network of Torah study academies combining demanding Judaic studies and military service) headed by Rabbi Col. Eliezer Chaim Shenvald. And one of the first scholar-warriors the yeshiva produced is a young man named Yoad Kaplan, from Caesarea. In December 2008, at the tail end of Chanukah — holiday of the Maccabees — Kaplan and fellow Meir Harel Yeshiva student Uri Spiegel were squad commanders in the 51st Battalion of the Golani Brigade, gathered in a staging area just outside the Gaza region in southern Israel. Daniel Attar, also a Meir Harel Yeshiva student, was with another company assigned the same mission: enter Gaza and neutralize the enemy. By that point, the Hamas regime in Gaza and its allied jihadists had been bombarding Israeli cities and towns with hundreds of Kassam and Grad rockets for years — ever more intensely after the unilateral disengagement from the region in 2005, in which thousands of Israelis were uprooted from their homes. As Yoad and his comrades waited, they heard and saw the Hamas rockets flying out of Gaza, heading toward their civilian targets on the Israeli homefront. "We felt like emissaries.... It felt like we were defending our homes," Yoad told a local Modi'in newspaper. For his company commander, however, it was even more literal — his Ashdod home had been hit by a Hamas rocket just a short time earlier. Operation Cast Lead (also called the Gaza War) began on the sixth day of Chanukah with a series of airstrikes, but one week later, on a Saturday night, the infantry was ordered to penetrate the enemy lines. The 51st, Kaplan's battalion, was one of the first in. It was also one of the first hit when the enemy fired dozens of mortars toward the advancing Israeli ground forces. Yoad and 17 other soldiers suffered wounds of varying severity when a shell landed in their midst that very night. Suffering from what was determined to be moderate injuries, Yoad was evacuated to Soroka Hospital in Beersheba, where he was rushed immediately into the operating room. Doctors worked diligently to save his arm. After a few days of hospitalization, Yoad mentioned matter-of-factly to his doctor that he was going to begin an officer's course in two months. It was then that Yoad got the shocking news: only after another year of rehabilitation would it be possible to determine if he could ever return to a combat unit, much less an officer's course. But Yoad would not be held back. For the next several months, he made intense efforts to strengthen himself both physically — with physiotherapy three times a week — and spiritually — with a return to high-level learning at Meir Harel Yeshiva. Doctors, physiotherapists, friends and family were amazed by Yoad's speedy recuperation, which they saw as just short of miraculous. Within seven months of suffering what was supposed to be a debilitating arm injury, Yoad requested to return to combat duty. He quickly persuaded all the relevant decision-makers that he was fit to take part in the infantry officer's course, no matter how physically demanding it may be. So it was that Yoad Kaplan was called to step forward before hundreds of new and veteran officers two months ago to be awarded recognition as Outstanding Officer of the Course. At the concluding ceremony, when Yoad received his Second Lieutenant rank, IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak offered high praise for Yoad's dedication to excellence. His success, they said, demonstrates the awesome power of faith in the righteousness of one's cause and tenacity in reaching one's goals — with which one can achieve the impossible. Building those character traits, along with moral and practical leadership skills, are part and parcel of the encompassing Torah learned, lived and taught at Hesder Yeshivas such as the Meir Harel Yeshiva. There can be no doubt that Judah the Maccabee would feel more at home overlooking Rabbi Shenvald's study hall than he ever could peering down from the mantelpiece at West Point.
Nissan Ratzlav-Katz — "a dynamic and effective writer," according to
former US presidential speech-writer David Frum — provides marketing
and business communications services for a wide array of organizations
in Israel and abroad. He is also a former Opinion Editor for Israel
National News.com. Nissan can be reached at nissan@nrk-online.com or
through
|
|
EX-HAMAS MAN GETS U.S. ASYLUM; ISRAEL LEAVES JEWISH TOWNS IN JUDEA-SAMARIA DESICCATED
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 2, 2010. |
|
AIRPORT FUEL BOMB PLOT TRIAL TO START IN BROOKLYN Three years ago, federal authorities uncovered an international plot to bomb the fuel tanks at Kennedy International Airport at the Brooklyn-Queens border. The explosion would set ablaze a fuel pipeline that would explode along its length well outside the airport. One suspect pleaded guilty. Of the other two, the trial of the Trinidad native is postponed because of poor health, and the remaining one is to be tried on Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn. The plot is said to have been backed by an Islamist organization in
Trinidad, Jamaat al Muslimeen. The plot was led by a naturalized
airport cargo handler from Guyana and by a member of the Guyanese
Parliament (A.G. Sulzberger, NY Times, 6/30/10, A24).
EX-HAMAS MAN GETS U.S. ASYLUM Mosab Hassan Yousef, son of a founder of Hamas, has been granted "tentative" political asylum in the U.S.. Mr. Yousef, once active in Hamas, turned against it when he realized it just is brutal. He helped Israel squelch terrorist plots, minimizing the number of deaths of fellow Arabs as well as of Jews. He turned toward Christianity and felt it safer in America. Unfortunately, when his background became known, immigration authorities focused on his original membership in Hamas and not on his work against it. They moved to deport him. Yousef appealed, pointing out that if he had to go back, they would kill him. The U.S. government dropped concerns that he represented a terrorist threat to the U.S. (Wall St. J., 7/2/10, A 6, with some background from earlier report). Encouraging to see the government come to its senses, and drop its bureaucratic rigidity. It would have committed a demoralizing injustice.
U.S. SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST CAMPUS CHRISTIAN GROUP Although the U.S. Supreme Court has been ending restrictions on Constitutional rights lately, it curbed freedom of association and religious freedom for a Christian campus group. It ruled against the Christian Legal Society of Hastings College [about which we reported at length]. Hastings College of the University of California rescinded recognition of the Society. That denies it student organization benefits, such as meetings in school buildings, email lists, and a share of mandatory student-activity fees. The College did so on the grounds that student groups must accept all applicants, even if they disagree with a group's core beliefs. The Society had excluded people opposed to its Christian ideology and practice. [Not involved is attendance at the group's meetings, which are open to the public. The Muslim Students Association has barred the public from some of its lectures.] Judge Bader said a group is not entitled to public funding if it discriminates. The ruling means that opponents could come into a group and non-violently disrupt its program, including its religious activities. The Dean said that a black student organization would have to admit Klan members who applied (Wall St. J., 7/2/10, Ed.). The dilemma is how to get government to be neutral on religion, neither imposing it nor imposing on it. Neither Court nor College raised the matter of public funding of religious activity — they implicitly accepted the special case of a religious student group on campus, where there are no private church organizations as there are in towns. The Court and college ruled on the basis of discrimination. But when is association discriminatory and when is it being discriminating as in freedom of association? Tough case.
ISRAEL LEAVES JEWISH TOWNS IN JUDEA-SAMARIA DESICCATED 
The government of Israel is leaving Jewish towns in Judea-Samaria desiccated. Although the government is raising those towns' water bills, those towns are getting less water as Arabs steal it. Israel national water company, Mekorot, has an above-ground pipeline, sometimes routed near Arab villages, and into which Arabs drill. They then either load water trucks destined for Arab towns or reroute the water into Arab towns. The theft can amount to 75% of a town's water supply. The Jews get the meter reading and the Arabs get their thirst quenched. Pnei Hever and other Jewish towns in the Hebron area are victims of the Arab thieves every night. There may not be enough water left for washing, when they wake up in the morning. The Jewish victims appealed to Mekorot, which pleaded helplessness. Jewish residents have turned to the Ministries of Infrastructure and of Public Security. The lethargic government reaction impresses the victims as deliberate (Arutz-7, 7/2/10). Perhaps this is what the Left means when it urges the government to dry out "settlements." How much is deliberate, how much is bureaucracy, and how much is lack of law enforcement against Arab banditry? There is much of all three, in government behavior toward the Jews of Judea-Samaria, as I have shown over the years.
This is in addition to Arab rustling and theft of land.
PALESTINIAN ARABS IN LEBANON PROTEST RESTRICTIONS Thousands of Arabs living in former refugee camps in Lebanon protested their living conditions. Lebanon has about 435,000 of the estimated five million descendants of the Palestinian Arab refugees. Although the Arab states' leaders had urged their ancestors to flee from the Arab invasion of Israel in 1948, when the refugees were unable to return to despoil the country, the Arab states refused to integrate the Arabs. Instead, for the most part, they denied employment and citizens' rights to the stateless Arabs. Lacking governmental social services, they rely upon UNRWA. Human Rights Watch's Beirut director Nadim Houry said, "Lebanon has marginalized Palestinian refugees for too long." One reason Arab states have for segregating them is fear they would gain political power. Another is to maintain them in a state of hostility to Israel, so they can be exploited in behalf of the Arab states against Israel (Arutz-7, 7/2/10). Another reason is Arab culture's contempt for losers and a lack of compassion. On the other hand, Palestinian Arabs have made themselves unpopular by attempted coups in Jordan and Lebanon and by helping Saddam conquer Kuwait. I think the news report is too harsh on Jordan. Jordan has granted many of its fellow Palestinian Arabs from Israel rights and employment. On the other hand, the article did not mention that the PLO has militias in at least some refugee camps in Lebanon. The Lebanese Army does not enter those camps unless attacked from them.
JANUARY-JUNE TERRORISM AGAINST ISRAELIS As the U.S. is about to pressure a visiting PM Netanyahu to make
further security concessions to the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) on
the grounds that the P.A. curbs terrorism and things are "quiet,"
judge for yourselves by this summary of terrorism against Israelis,
this January through June
(The original is in Hebrew in Yeshanews,
6 people killed [victims of terrorism, that is. Terrorist casualties shown in details] 2 critically wounded 9 moderately wounded 232 lightly wounded in terror attacks and fighting against terrorists 139 rockets fired At the Gaza border fence 60 shooting attacks, bombs, missiles fired, and attempted infiltrations. 130 Arabs apprehended with knives. 22 admitted intentions to perpetrate a terror attack Details: Rocket/Missile attacks: 25 mortars and 48 kassam missiles shot into Israel 1 killed (foreign worker) 2 people in shock 45 mortars and 19 kassam missiles fell inside Gaza 2-3 rockets shot at the Gulf of Eilat,1 discovered 70 meters from the Almog beach Terror at Gaza border fence: 2 soldiers killed 1 injured by sniper fire 1 injured in mine blast The Israel Air force attacked 8 tunnels, 1 weapons factory, 4 terror bases, 4 munitions storage area, 3 terrorist groups shooting rockets, 12 terrorists killed and one critically injured. 3 terror infiltrations prevented. The marines killed 6 terrorists planning an attack from the sea 18 shooting attacks against soldiers 1 hand grenade thrown 8 Anti-tank missiles shot 12 shooting attacks against workers 1 attack against farmers 3 mines discovered 5 bombs exploded 1 'wagon bomb' Knives and stabbing attacks: 103 Arabs arrested armed with knives 57 on their bodies 24 in vehicles 22 with other tools 1 killed by stabbing attack — Soldier Ihab Chatib, at the Tapuach junction. 1 lightly wounded in Netanya1 terrorist killed 1 terror suspect shot and lightly wounded A knife attack prevented — 2 terrorists killed Bombs in Judea and Samaria: 38 bombs discovered 4 fake bombs discovered Rock attacks and Arab violence: 218 injured by rock attacks and Arab violence 132 police and border police, 2 border police officers, lightly injured. 1 lightly-moderately wounded 12 soldiers and one officer wounded 56 civilians lightly wounded, including 3 children, one foreign tourist lightly wounded, 4 moderate and 3 treated for shock 2 civilians injured in auto accident due to rock attack, 1 wounded in accident due to rock barrier in street, 1 civilian by Arab violence in Southern Hebron Hills, 1 youth in Jerusalem, and a handicapped person by Arab violence during a car theft. Auto attacks: 3 auto attacks-attempts to run people over, 4 people lightly injured Terror shooting: One policeman killed, 1 moderately wounded, 3 lightly wounded, 2 civilians and one guard lightly wounded Killed and wounded in attacks and fights against terror: 3 soldiers killed, 1 killed by 'friendly fire' during terror operation, 1 policeman and one foreign worker killed Cemetery desecrations: 3 times ancient Jewish cemetery in Hebron desecrated via arson attacks. 23 gravestones destroyed on Mt. of Olives 2 other attacks near Nevatim and Shefaram (Hebron Jewish community, 7/2/10) Need to bring back the dismantled roadblocks and checkpoints.
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
PA THIEVES DRAIN JEWISH TOWN DRY
Posted by Maayana Miskin, July 2, 2010. |
|
Sixty Jewish families living in the town of Pnei Hever, near Hevron, face a Sabbath without water due to Palestinian Authority water thieves. Officials at Mekorot, Israel's national water company, say they are unable to help. Pnei Hever and other Jewish towns in the Hevron region have faced daily water theft for some time. PA Arabs drill into water pipes leading to the town every night, stealing an estimated 75% of the towns' water supply. On Thursday night, PA thieves drilled into the pipes leading to Pnei Hever and rerouted the water supply. Residents of the village woke up Friday morning to find that they had only 10 cubic meters of water to split between hundreds of people. As Mekorot workers said they could not help, residents turned to the Public Security Ministry and Ministry for National Infrastructure in the hope of getting assistance. A similar incident took place last Thursday, when residents of Pnei Hever awoke to discover that nearly all of their water had been stolen overnight. Children were forced to go to school or daycare without so much as brushing their teeth or washing their hands. Yigal Klein, head of the Pnei Hever secretariat, said the water theft phenomenon was a familiar one. A resident recently witnessed an Arab truck driver fiddling with a water pipe near the Jewish town of Susiya, he said. "Many times trucks fill up with water and drive to the [Arab] villages," he said. Some of the pipes bringing water to local Jewish villages pass through Arab villages, where residents do what they please with the water supply and the IDF's hands are tied, he said. Water bills have risen repeatedly in the last few months with a 5% rise to take effect shortly. "What's most worrisome is that we've been told to prepare for an entire summer like this," he said. "Our regional council is trying to put pressure on the government ministries, on the Water Authority, on Mekorot, but we're getting the feeling that this is what's been decreed for us and there's nothing to do." (IsraelNationalNews.com) Maayana Miskin is a writer for Arutz-7 (www.INN.com),where this article appeared today. |
|
ALTERNATIVES TO SURRENDER
Posted by Yaacov Levi, July 1, 2010. |
|
This was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared in June 29, 2010 in the Jerusalem Post. Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Her book "The Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad," is available at Amazon.com. Visit her website at www.CarolineGlick.com. Contact her by email at caroline@carolineglick.com |
|
For too long, by allowing themselves to be led by our deranged media, Israeli citizens and governments alike have ignored the fact that the answer to every question is not more concessions. To the roaring cheers of the local media, on Sunday the Schalit family embarked on a cross-country march to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's residence. They set out two days after the fourth anniversary of IDF Sgt. Gilad Schalit's captivity. Outside their home on Sunday, Gilad's father Noam Schalit pledged not to return home without his son. The Schalit family intends to camp out outside of Netanyahu's home until the government reunites them with Gilad. For weeks the local media  and especially Ma'ariv and Yediot Aharonot  have portrayed the Schalit family's trek to Netanyahu as a reenactment of Moses' journey to Pharaoh. Like Pharaoh, the media insinuates that Netanyahu is evil because he refuses to free Gilad from bondage. The only drawback to this dramatic, newspaper-selling story is that it is wrong. Gilad Schalit is not a hostage in Jerusalem. He is a hostage in Gaza. His captor is not Netanyahu. His captor is Hamas. And because the story is wrong, the media organized cavalcade of ten thousand well-intentioned Israelis is moving in the wrong direction. And not only is it going in the wrong direction, it is doing so at Gilad Schalit's expense. The truth that Yediot and Ma'ariv's marketing departments ignore is that Schalit's continued captivity is a function of Hamas's growing strength. To bring him home, Israel shouldn't release a thousand terrorists from prison. To bring Gilad Schalit home a free man, Israel must weaken Hamas. And this is an eminently achievable goal. Noam Schalit knows it is an achievable goal. That is why last week he was the most outspoken critic of Netanyahu's decision to abandon Israel's economic sanctions against Hamas-controlled Gaza. That is why over the past four years, the Schalit family has staged countless protests against Israel's massive and continuous assistance to Hamas-controlled Gaza. If anything positive is to come from this march, then when the Schalit family arrives in Jerusalem they should abandon the newspapers' demand that Israel surrender to all of Hamas's demands. They should acknowledge that doing so will only guarantee that more Israelis will be kidnapped and murdered by Hamas and its allies. If the Schalits wish to criticize the government, they should criticize Netanyahu and his coalition for the steps they have taken to strengthen Hamas. The Schalits should demand that the government reinstate and tighten Israel's economic sanctions against Gaza. They should demand that Israel end its supply of electricity and gasoline to Gaza and take more effective action to block smuggling through the tunnels along the Gaza-Egypt border. All of these actions will weaken Hamas, and so contribute to the
prospect of it being forced by the Gazans themselves to release
Schalit to his family.
ONE OF the important truths ignored by Israel's pathological media is that Hamas and its Iranian sponsor are not all powerful. They are vulnerable to criticism from their own publics. And Israel is capable of fomenting such criticism. For example, the imprisoned terrorists whose release Hamas demands in exchange for releasing Schalit have consistently responded rationally to Israeli threats. The Knesset is slowly debating a bill that would worsen prison conditions of terrorists. And the terrorists are worried. Their worry provoked them to demand that Hamas be more forthcoming with Schalit. By the same token, were Israel to cut off electricity to Gaza  an act that is not merely lawful, but arguably required by international law  we could expect residents of Gaza to express a similarly rational demand to Hamas. That is, were Israel to weaken public support for Hamas, Hamas would be more likely to bow to Israel's will. And if Hamas is vulnerable to public criticism, the Iranian regime is downright terrified of public criticism. Take the regime's behavior in the wake of the Turkish-Hamas flotilla campaign. In the days that followed Israel's bungled May 31 takeover of the Mavi Marmara, Iran announced it was sending two of its own ships to Gaza. Israel responded rationally and forthrightly. The government warned that any Iranian ship would be viewed as an enemy ship and Israel would respond in accordance with the rules of war. As Iran expert Michael Ledeen has argued repeatedly, the Iranian regime is terrified of getting the Iranian people angry over its radical foreign policy. In light of its precarious standing with its own public, Israel's forthright threat of war brought the regime to its knees. Last Thursday, Hossein Sheikholdslam, the Iranian regime functionary responsible for the Gaza-bound ships, told the Iranian news service IRNA that plans to send the ships were scrapped because Israel "sent a letter to the United Nations saying that the presence of Iranian and Lebanese ships in the Gaza area will be considered a declaration of war on [Israel] and it will confront it." During the war with Iran's Hizbullah proxy in 2006, thousands of Iranians demonstrated against Hizbullah. They demanded that the regime invest its money in the local economy and not in Hizbullah and the Palestinians. Were Israel to present Schalit as an Israeli victim of the Iranian regime, it could provoke a similar popular outcry against Iran's support for Hamas. The media-manipulated Schalits are not the only ones acting precisely against their own interests. The government is acting with similar madness in its relations with the Obama administration. Indeed, Netanyahu ended Israel's lawful economic sanctions against Hamas-controlled Gaza (sanctions that served, among other things as a bargaining chip for freeing Schalit), because the Obama administration placed overwhelming pressure on him to do so. Not wishing to let the Mavi Marmara crisis go to waste, US President Barack Obama had used it as a means to weaken Israel against Hamas. Obama announced that he was giving Hamas-controlled Gaza $400 million in US aid. He forced Netanyahu to end Israel's economic sanctions against the illegal Hamas regime. Moreover, according to remarks by a senior Hamas terrorist to the
London-based Al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper on Friday, the Obama
administration maintains direct ties to the Hamas leadership in Syria.
WHEN NETANYAHU entered office last spring his desire to appease Obama was understandable. At the time, he was operating under the hope that perhaps Obama could be appeased into ending his onslaught against the Jewish state. But the events of the past year have made clear that Obama is unappeasable. Every concession Israel has made to Obama has merely whetted the US president's appetite for more. The policy implications of this state of affairs are clear. First, Israel must strive to weaken Obama. Since Israeli concessions to Obama strengthen him, Israel must first and foremost stop giving him concessions. Weakening Obama does not involve openly attacking him. It means Israel should act in a way that advances its interests and forces Obama to reconsider the desirability of his current foreign policy. Regionally, Israel should make common cause with the Kurds of Iran, Iraq and Syria who are now being assaulted by Iran, Turkey and Syria. Doing so is not simply the moral thing to do. It weakens Iran, Syria and Turkey and demonstrates that Obama's appeasement policies are harming those who love freedom and empowering those who hate it. By the same token, Israel should do everything it can to strengthen
the Iranian Green movement. Every anti-regime action in Iran Â
regardless of its size  harms the regime and therefore helps Israel.
And every anti-regime action in Iran exposes the moral depravity and
strategic idiocy of Obama's policy of appeasing the mullocracy.
AS FOR the US domestic political realm, in Ambassador Michael Oren's all but schizophrenic recent statements about the Obama administration's policy towards Israel, we may at last be witnessing an embrace of political sanity on the part of the government. For the past several months, Oren has acted as the Obama administration's most energetic cheerleader to the US Jewish community. He has repeatedly and wrongly reassured US Jewish audiences that Obama is a great friend of Israel, that his Democratic Party remains loyal to the US-Israel alliance and that the Republicans are wrong to claim that there is a difference between the two major US political parties when it comes to supporting Israel. The pinnacle of Oren's pro-Obama campaign came with his interview last week with The Jerusalem Post. There he brought all of these false and counter-productive claims into the public realm. Apparently Oren's decision to make his adulation of the Obama administration public finally forced his bosses in Jerusalem to order him to cease, desist and do an about face. And so, last week, Oren told a closed audience of Israeli diplomats the truth. Under Obama, Oren whispered, there has been a "tectonic rift" in US relations with Israel. While some of Obama's advisers are sympathetic to Israel, these advisers have no influence on Obama's positions on Israel. No doubt recognizing how silly his about face made him look, Oren tried to deny his statements at the Foreign Ministry. But it is hard to imagine anyone will take him seriously. During his visit to the White House next week, Netanyahu should follow the path set by Oren's quickly leaked remarks. Netanyahu should abstain from praising Obama for his friendship and speak instead about the fact that the US-Israel alliance is vital for both countries' national security. Netanyahu should insist on the right to call on questioners at his joint appearance with Obama. And he should use those questions and those appearances to discuss why Israel's actions are not only legal and necessary for Israel, but vital for US national security. During his stay in the US, Netanyahu should discuss the global jihad, Islamic terrorism, the freedom-loving Kurds and the freedom-loving Iranian people every chance he gets. Indeed, he should create opportunities to discuss them. Here we see a crucial point of convergence between the Schalit family march to Jerusalem and Netanyahu's trip to Washington. To increase the effectiveness of their efforts on behalf of Gilad, ahead of Netanyahu's visit to Washington, the marchers should split into two groups. The first group should continue to Jerusalem and demand that Israel take a firmer stand against Hamas. The second group should walk to Tel Aviv and camp out outside the US Embassy. There they should demand that the administration end its contacts with Hamas, end its pressure on the Israeli government to strengthen Hamas, cancel Obama's plan to give an additional $400 million dollars in aid to Hamas and use the US's position on the UN Security Council to condemn Turkey for its material support for Hamas. For too long, by allowing themselves to be led by our deranged media, Israeli citizens and governments alike have ignored the basic fact that the answer to every question is not more Israeli concessions. Contrary to what our tabloids would have us believe, surrender is only one option among many. It is time we try out some alternatives. Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
UN PARTITION 1947 — DELIRIUM
Posted by Ted Belman, July 1, 2010. |
|
In 1947, Zippy Porath (nee Borowsky) came to Jerusalem from NY on a year's scholarship. Little did she realize she would be a witness to history. She wrote many letters home which were published in Letters from Jerusalem '47 to '48. Here's the one on the partition vote. If it doesn't stir your soul, nothing will. I remember that evening well. In my small town in Canada we had 22 Jewish families. Everyone came down to the community center/shul to hear the partition vote and to celebrate. The excitement was palpable. We rose to sing the new words of Hatikvah. |
|
Dearest Mother, Dad and Naomi, I walked in a semi-daze through the crowds of happy faces, through the deafening singing of "David, Melech Yisrael, chai, chai vekayam" (David, King of Israel, lives and is alive), past the British tanks and jeeps piled high with pyramids of flag-waving, cheering children. I dodged motorcycles, wagons, cars and trucks which were racing madly up and down King George V Street, missing each other miraculously, their running boards and headlights overflowing with layer upon layer of elated, happy people. I pushed my way past the crying, kissing, tumultuous crowds and the exultant shouts of "Mazal tov" and came back to the quiet of my room ... to try to share with you this never-to-be-forgotten night. The light in my room was still on from last night. I had planned to go to sleep early since rumor had it that voting at the UN on the Partition Plan would probably be postponed for another day. But, at about 11:00 P.M. there was a knock on the door: "We're getting through to America. Come on down. The voting's tonight." Ten pajama-clad bodies crowded into a room with space enough for five and sat tensely around the battered radio for what seemed like hours while vain attempts were made to get clear reception from Lake Success. We got through just as the announcement of the majority vote was made: thirty-three in favor, thirteen against and ten abstentions. Ecstatic, we hugged and kissed each other frantically, then stood rigidly at attention and sang Hatikvah fervently. Out came bottles of wine, biscuits and candy. We ate and drank and held a solemn little ceremony, then dashed to our rooms, hurriedly slipped on whatever clothing was on hand and banged on all the doors to wake up those who had slept through the good news. All the students in the building scrambled up to the roof and, under the warmth of moonglow and wine, danced deliriously. Then we made a snake line to the nearest houses, banging on the shutters and doors, shouting the news as we went. In a seemingly endless column, we wound our way to the next community, Bet Hakerem, where the Teachers Seminary is and where most of its students live. The streets were already full, ring upon ring of dancing groups circling in a frenzied hora. Ours was the last and largest circle. Arms linked, marching six abreast, singing all the way, the battalion of students advanced, shouting the news to neighbors who poked their sleepy heads out of windows and doors to see what the commotion was about, straight to Hamekasher, the bus terminal. Confronting the watchman with the news, we demanded a bus to take us to town. He was so excited he provided three. In a mad scramble we piled in, body on body; down the road we raced like a million hearts on fire, headed for the heart of Jerusalem. The streets in the city were beginning to fill as the news got around. People poured out of their homes in a continuous ever thickening stream. In the center of town crowds of happy people, hugging each other, dancing horas and jigs, headed spontaneously, as we were headed drawn by some magnetic force — to the courtyard of the fortress-like Sochnut (Jewish Agency) building, which for years housed the hopes for a Jewish State in Palestine. Out came a flag and onto the balcony came Golda Myerson. There were no words to suit the moment. Choked with emotion, she managed to say "Mazal tov," and down came tears, oceans of unrestrained happy tears. All night streams of joyful crowds assembled in the courtyard milling in and out — to pay homage, to give vent to exultant feelings that welled up from deep inside. A group of us marched to the press room of the Palestine Post to get the latest news from Morty and Dov, our friends who work there. Another round of drinks and embraces and crazy dances while we waited for the historic First Edition to come off the presses. At 4:30 in the morning, flushed with excitement, ignoring the wet ink, we passed our copies around for everyone to autograph, including an English Tommy who wandered in for a drink. Then Morty, Dov, Milt, and Ray Sussman, and I and several student friends who had come with me headed back to the Sochnut building, just in time to see a streak of warm beauty spring up out of the horizon and smile good morning to us. We looked at each other, drew closer together, wrapped arms about each other's chilled shoulders and felt the thrill of experiencing an historic wonder, dawn bidding Shalom to a Jewish State. Our group consisted of about fourteen fellows and a few hirls, from about as many countries. We made our way singing to Morty's room, not far away, where we found the landlord so elated he didn't know what to do for us first. Never the practical person, I suggested food and prepared sandwiches, fruit and coffee while we drank yet another Lechaim." Leaving the house, we were met by scores of morning crowds, some from the night before, some fresh out of bed, kissing and embracing and shouting "Mazal tov!" And as we rounded the corner into Keren Kayemet Street, where the Sochnut is, whiz came the motorcycles, lorries, cars and the children, now awake, and took up the gaiety where we had left off. Spontaneous parades formed, led by a flag bearer and a couple of drunken British soldiers — this time, thank goodness, unarmed. The sun was getting warmer and warmer, a glorious day. The end of November, and seventy-five degrees of heartwarming sunslline was bearing down on a happy city. The foreign correspondents and Pathe men were on the job photographing the British tanks which were suddenly converted into fiying transport for anyone who could climb aboard, sing, shout and wave a fiag. We joined the crowds, going from one end of King George V Street to the other, meeting friends and fraternizing with the English soldiers, who were as happy as we were about the end of tension and ill feeling between us. All they wanted was to go home. With each round we ended up at the Sochnut again; every crowd did. Rumor had it that Ben-Gurion had just arrived from Tel Aviv and would make a personal appearance. Sure enough, there he was, standing on the balcony of the Sochnut building. He looked slowly and solemnly around him — to the rooftops crammed with people, to the throngs that stood solid in the courtyard below him. He raised his hand. An utter silence waited for his words: "Ashreynu shezachinu layom hazeh." (Blessed are we who have been privileged to witness this day.) He concluded with "Techi Hamedinah Ha'ivrit" (Long Live the Jewish State it doesn't have a name yet) and called for Hatikvah. A solemn chant rose from all sides. The moment was too big for our feelings. There were few dry eyes and few steady voices. Ben-Gurion tossed his head back proudly, tenderly touched the flag that hung from the railing and charged the air with electricity when he shouted defiantly, "WE ARE A FREE PEOPLE." How I wished you could have heard his words and been here for tills memorable night and never-to-be-forgotten morning. It was too unbelievable. Making my way to the bus to go home for a camera and a wash, I noticed that all the cafes and wine shops had fiung open their doors — dri ks on the house. Flags were hoisted everywhere and shopkeepers had decorated their windows with photos of Theodor Herzl, whose words have inspired and sustained Zionists until this day: "If you will it, it is no dream." Now that it was happening, it seemed more than ever like a dream. My heart was bursting from JOY· Later that night ... I grabbed my camera, changed clothes and joined my friends to return to the city and the excitemet. Notices were already prominently displayed announcing a mass meeting to be held in the Sochnut courtyard at 3:00 in the afternoon, and a very impressive affair it was. We had already heard that there were incidents of Arab ambushes on the road from Haifa to Jerusalem. The crowds were more sober and, when told to, dispersed in an orderly and disciplined manner, everyone going to his own home and his own family celebration. We had ours too, then a hot bath and off to sleep, trying to make up for about fifty non-stop hours of delirium. Your loving daughter, Zippy.
Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. He now lives in Jerusalem. Contact him at tedbel@israpundit.com |
|
PROGRESSIVE? THEN DON'T BOYCOTT ISRAEL
Posted by Sheridan Neimark, July 1, 2010. |
|
This was written by Ben S. Cohen, who is Associate Director of Communications, American Jewish Congress. |
|
It was an expose in the best traditions of investigative journalism: Commerce Department documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act that detailed how, between 1965 and 1977, more than one thousand American corporations colluded in the economic boycott of a small, embattled country, in a bid to please a group of powerful, oil-producing states. Though the boycott was prohibited under U.S. law, the government consciously looked the other way as these corporations went the extra mile in complying with the boycott. Like when they discriminated against employees deemed to have compromising ethnic ties to the targeted country. The article in question appeared in 1981. The object of the boycott, organized by the League of Arab States, was Israel. And the magazine that published these revelations was The Nation. How times have changed. Three decades after it named and shamed those American corporations who cozied up to some of the most repressive and reactionary countries on earth, The Nation has become the house journal of the American branch of the movement to subject Israel — and only Israel — to a campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS for short.) A recent issue of the magazine included a piece by Adam Horowitz and Philip Weiss endorsing BDS with zealot-like enthusiasm. Rich in distortions and half-truths, the article was at its most preposterous in depicting BDS as a grassroots movement assembling Palestinians, anti-Zionist Jews, human rights advocates and labor unionists in a moral crusade against Zionism. Scratch beneath this complacent self-image and you quickly understand that the origins of the BDS movement have more in common with a black shirt than a rainbow flag. Horowitz and Weiss point out that there is an established boycott tradition among the Palestinians, citing their embargo against the Jewish community in Palestine during the upheavals of 1936. What they don't mention is that the 1936 boycott was accompanied by a paroxysm of violence against Jews and their property. Nor do they mention that the Palestinian leadership, under Haj Amin al Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, was unashamedly pro-Nazi. Indeed, the policy of simultaneously boycotting and beating the Jews had been introduced by Hitler when he assumed power three years earlier. In 1945, al Husseini's Nazi-derived policy was formalized by the Arab League Council, which declared a boycott of "Jewish" and "Zionist" goods. In 1948, the Arab League launched a separate office to enforce an economic boycott of the State of Israel that functioned upon three levels, by targeting Israeli companies, foreign companies working in Israel, and foreign companies conducting business with other companies with an operational base in Israel. Given these parameters, it was inevitable that the application of the boycott would blur the line between Israel as a state and Jews as a people. That point was cogently grasped by Mark Green and Steven Solow, the authors of the 1981 Nation piece. "There is nothing necessarily objectionable in economic boycotts of one country or community by another," they wrote. Yet, they added, "the Arab embargo of Israel can be distinguished from other boycotts by the way it discriminated not only against a country but against an entire religious group. Thus American Jews were sometimes penalized by their employers simply because they were Jews." However much BDS advocates insist otherwise, that observation remains true today. Unlike, say, the African-American boycott of segregated buses, which aimed to change a racist policy and did not apply to whites in general, the boycott of Israel reaches much wider. Any Israeli who does not explicitly disavow his or her country is fair game — and those who declare their solidarity with Israelis are, as a consequence, equally suspect. Crucially, the "United Call for BDS," which Horowitz and Weiss approvingly link to, dates the Israeli occupation as beginning not in 1967, following the Six Day War, but in 1948, when Israel was created. This is no accident, for the aim of the BDS movement is not to effect a change in Israeli policy, but to dismantle the state which makes those policies. Diehard anti-Zionists won't be bothered by that, of course. Still, there is a much larger group of people within the orbit of the BDS movement — like the U.S. Presbyterian Church, which gathers in a few days time to discuss a report which includes a comparison of Israel with Nazi Germany — who may wish to consider where the demonizing rhetoric and toxic origins of the boycott campaign might lead them. In addition, as the Presbyterians deliberate on a resolution to divest from Caterpillar Inc., the bete noire of BDS advocates, they might ponder the following. In their Nation article from 1981, Caterpillar was named by Green and Solow as one of those corporations complying with the Arab boycott. They quoted a Caterpillar spokesman confirming that the company would cooperate with Arab requests for information about such vital operational matters as whether there were any Jews on the payroll ("If somebody wanted to do business with us and wanted to confirm a fact, we did it," the spokesman said.) Isn't it ironic? Caterpillar abandoned those racist practices. Now, the BDS movement wants Caterpillar to readopt them — and is telling the public to scorn the company until it does so. No doubt, the Mufti of Jerusalem would approve. |
|
CALLING ALL LIBERALS AND LIBERTARIANS: KINDLY CUT THE CRAP
Posted by Yaacov Levi, July 1, 2010. |
|
This was written by Margie Laupheimer and it appeared today
in Earthhope Action Network
|
|
Hezbollah army doing the Nazi salute Bizarrely enough a lot of Jews are liberals. How they do the mental gymnastics of being a Jew and yet supporting those who would obliterate Israeli Jews (and by extension, them) beats the hell out of me. (Christians also have their various counterparts in the conflict). They might also make a note to themselves that reads "Putting Middle Eastern domination into the hands of Islamic regimes will also further the killing, raping, mutilation, torturing, maiming (and cause the endless suffering) of (some such subjected Muslim men) but mostly of millions of subjected women and female children". Another happening thing is that many, if not most, libertarians support the Arabs vs Israel. Now, I am libertarian and am not on board with this at all. I believe the reason many libertarians support the Arabs is born of a fallacy in logic, i.e. they automatically assume that because Israel has the most (weapons) power — Israel is therefore wrong. Sorry, fellow libertarians, not good logic. Try again. Israel, however, only has the most weapons power of any single Middle Eastern nation, as my friend Mechel Samburg pointed out when he said: "The bottom line is, Israel is the one outnumbered in land and population, even with US support, all those Arab and Moslem lands get support from the UN, US, EU, etc. so Israel is in fact, the underdog." Groupthink also comes into play. Libertarians, please stick to the tenets of libertarianism and stop using errors in reason, and often common hatred, to promulgate bullshit. Stopping aid to all foreign countries is one thing, however, don't use all this as an excuse to have another holocaust. What was that? Did I hear you say that Israel is the one doing the holocaust on Arabs? Nice try. Do I hear a call for Israel's need for self defense or does self defense apply only when convenient?
Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
DEMAND JUSTICE ON ISRAEL'S TERMS
Posted by Paul Lademain, July 1, 2010. |
|
The Israel Project (TIP) increasingly forgets history in order to beg for peace. TIP urges Israelis to sacrifice for peace. Nothing wrong with peace if you can afford to sacrifice the population of Israel and carry the stain of their blood on your hands. Look at what you've done so far: You get invited to occasions and love-fest events, But the only peace TIP has managed to acquire for the nation of Israel is one that has Islamics murdering, kidnapping, and bombing Jews. Where was TIP when Yasser Arafat was cutting secret deals with Shimon Peres so they could share the wealth they intended to drain from Gaza? Where was TIP when Shimon Peres and his "dearest friend in peace, Yasser Arafat" established secret NGOs in the Cayman Islands just for that purpose? Wealthy Jews in NYC reportedly funded Peres' NGO. Where was TIP when the Obama administration issued demands that Jews should vacate their lands in Jerusalem and populate them for Muslims and ONLY Muslims. Where was TIP when such traitorous publicity hogs as Neve Gordon degrades all Jews, including TIP? Why does TIP pretend that the arabs and their Sudanese mercenaries who trekked into Gaza are "palestinians" who are interested in "peace"?Why your silence? Are you afraid? If so, of whom? Why are you silent? Are you pretending that these Muslims cannot hate you with the same feverish hatred they harbored for the Algerian villagers they slaughtered? And that your being Jewish has less to do with your religion and more to do with their imperialist campaign to steal whatever they have no right to claim as their own? Including the lands of Israel. The time has come for TIP to aspire to a more noble aspiration than a niggardly "peace." You must set aside your fantasies of peace. You must demand Justice for Israel, not peace. Beside, the comparatively few Muslims who want peace with Jews can be counted on your fingers and toes, meanwhile millions of Muslims are being taught how to justify shaming Jews, how to embarrass and vilify Jews, how to demonize Jews and they've done this so relentlessly that finally, you as Jews, begin to internalize their lies and fall to pieces at their feet. It is about time you put a stop to such fools as Tom Friedman, who yammers about the so-called Palestinians and begs Israel to give them a place to call home. It is our opinion that he is Saudi Arabia's house Jew and that he relishes that role. A Jew should be making a case for Israel by citing to international law that described the boundaries of the Jewish Homeland. These boundaries encompassed all the land you Jews are now thinking you should trade away for "peace". Your thoughts along these lines are the thoughts of the weak horse, not the strong horse. And it is the weak horse who will be led to the abattoir. You should know that by now. So stop begging for peace. Stop bargaining for peace. Demand Justice! Focus on Jordan. Jordan was fashioned from lands accorded to the Jewish Homeland per the San Remo Resolution. Jordan is occupied by 90% of those arabs who want to be known as "palestinians." If the arabs are to have their new homeland which they arrogantly name "Palestine" then your duty is to ensure that they take their land from the Hashemite royals who wrongly accepted the British gift of your homeland, a gift which the British had no legal right to take away from the Jews. Your duty is spelled out according to the San Remo Resolution and this is set forth in Prof. Howard Grief's seminal treatise on international law: The Legal Foundation of the Boundaries of Israel under International Law. If we can read this book and understand it, then it is a crime against your own identity as Jews, your identity as Semites, your identity as Jewish converts, to ignore your duty to uphold each and every right and advantage of the nation of Israel. We are the Secular Christians for Zion. We support Israel because we believe in JUSTICE! Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net |
|
A READING FOR KNOWLEDGE OF ISLAM SHARIA
Posted by John J. Facino, Sr., July 1, 2010. |
|
CREEPING SHARIA This was written by a woman born in Egypt as a Muslim. This is not hearsay, and it will scare the life out of you. It is called "Joys of Muslim Women" and it was written by Nonie Darwish. My comments below are in Square Brackets ([]) and italicized. |
|
In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old and have sexual intimacy with this child. Consummating the marriage by 9. The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave) and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use her as his toy! Even though a woman is abused she can not obtain a divorce. To prove rape, the woman must have 4 male witnesses. Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family. Husbands can beat their wives 'at will' and he does not have to say why he has beaten her. The husband is permitted to have 4 wives and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion. The Shariah Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman. In the West World (America) Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife can not obtain a divorce and he can have full and complete control of her. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shariah law. By passing this on, enlightened American women may avoid becoming a slave under Shariah Law. Ripping the West in Two. [Author and lecturer Nonie Darwish says the goal of radical Islamists is to impose Shariah law on the world, ripping Western law and liberty in two. She recently authored the book, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law. Darwish was born in Cairo and spent her childhood in Egypt and Gaza before immigrating to America in 1978, when she was eight years old. Her father died while leading covert attacks on Israel. He was a high-ranking Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza. When he died, he was considered a "shahid," a martyr for jihad. His posthumous status earned Nonie and her family an elevated position in Muslim society. But Darwish developed a skeptical eye at an early age. She questioned her own Muslim culture and upbringing.. She converted to Christianity after hearing a Christian preacher on television. In her latest book, Darwish warns about creeping sharia law — what it is, what it means, and how it is manifested in Islamic countries. For the West, she says radical Islamists are working to impose sharia on the world. If that happens, Western civilization will be destroyed. Westerners generally assume all religions encourage a respect for the dignity of each individual. Islamic law (Sharia) teaches that non-Muslims should be subjugated or killed in this world.] Peace and prosperity for one's children is not as important as assuring that Islamic law rules everywhere in the Middle East and eventually in the world. While Westerners tend to think that all religions encourage some form of the golden rule, Sharia teaches two systems of ethics — one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. Building on tribal practices of the seventh century, Sharia encourages the side of humanity that wants to take from and subjugate others. While Westerners tend to think in terms of religious people developing a personal understanding of and relationship with God, Sharia advocates executing people who ask difficult questions that could be interpreted as criticism. It's hard to imagine, that in this day and age, Islamic scholars agree that those who criticize Islam or choose to stop being Muslim should be executed. Sadly, while talk of an Islamic reformation is common and even assumed by many in the West, such murmurings in the Middle East are silenced through intimidation. While Westerners are accustomed to an increase in religious tolerance over time, Darwish explains how petrol dollars are being used to grow an extremely intolerant form of political Islam in her native Egypt and elsewhere. (In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the President by themselves! Rest assured they will do so... You can look at how they have taken over several towns in the USA .. Dearborn Mich. is one... and there are others...) [I think everyone in the U.S. should be required to read this, but with the ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on! It is too bad that so many are disillusioned with life and Christianity to accept Muslims as peaceful.. some may be but they have an army that is willing to shed blood in the name of Islam.. the peaceful support the warriors with their finances and own kind of patriotism to their religion. While America is getting rid of Christianity from all public sites and erasing God from the lives of children the Muslims are planning a great jihad on America .. This is your chance to make a difference...! Pass it on to your email list or at least those you think will listen.. Some of those I'm sending it to WILL NOT!
Contact John J. Facino, Sr. by email at jjfacinosr@comcast.com |
|
BRITAIN DECRIMINALIZES VIGILANTISM AGAINST ISRAEL
Posted by Yaacov Levi, July 1, 2010. |
|
This comes from
|
|
In a mind-blowing verdict, a British jury acquitted people who admitted that they purposefully caused damage to an arms factory — because, they said, the arms were being used by Israel: Five activists who caused €180,000 damage to an arms factory were acquitted after they argued they were seeking to prevent Israeli war crimes. The five were jubilant after a jury found them not guilty of conspiring to cause criminal damage to the factory on the outskirts of Brighton. The five admitted they had broken in and sabotaged the factory, but argued they were legally justified in doing so. They believed that EDO MBM, the firm that owns the factory, was breaking export regulations by manufacturing and selling to the Israelis military equipment which would be used in the occupied territories. They wanted to slow down the manufacture of these components, and impede what they believed were war crimes being committed by Israel against the Palestinians. They are the latest group of peace and climate-change activists to successfully use the "lawful excuse" defence — committing an offence to prevent a more serious crime — as a tactic in their campaigns. They had decided to act last January after three weeks of Israeli military manoeuvres against Gaza in which many Palestinians were killed. In his summing up, Judge George Bathurst-Norman suggested to the jury that "you may well think that hell on earth would not be an understatement of what the Gazans suffered in that time". The judge highlighted the testimony by Caroline Lucas, the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, that "all democratic paths had been exhausted" before the activists embarked on their action. Meaning that the judge pretty much told the jury to acquit them. Unbelievable. Hove crown court heard the activists had broken into the factory in the night. They had video-taped interviews beforehand outlining their intention to cause damage and, in the words of prosecutor Stephen Shay, "smash-up" the factory. These statements were posted on the Indymedia website shortly after they were arrested. Apparently, according to British law, Israel has no right to defend itself from Qassam rockets. Period. I guess that synagogue bombings can be defended next, because Jews provide material and emotional support for Israel which does all of these war crimes. Then they can go after Melanie Philips. It turns out that the judge was born in Arab Jaffa, and was brought out of retirement to hear this case, as a jubilant anti-Zionist notes.Which would explain his directing the jury as to what their verdict should be. Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
(EVEN A FEW) WORDS MATTER
Posted by Yaacov Levi, July 1, 2010. |
|
This was written by Victor Davis Hanson; and it appeared today in Jewish
World Review.
(http://jewishworldreview.com/ 0710/ hanson07011 0.php3)/ |
|
British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was ecstatic after the Munich Conference of 1938. He bragged that he had coaxed Adolf Hitler into stopping further aggression after the Nazis gobbled up much of Czechoslovakia. Arriving home, Chamberlain proudly displayed Hitler's signature on the Munich Agreement, exclaiming to adoring crowds, "I believe it is peace for our time. ... And now I recommend you to go home and sleep quietly in your beds." But after listening to Chamberlain' s nice nonsense, Hitler remarked to his generals about a week later, "Our enemies are little worms, I saw them at Munich." War followed in about a year. Sometimes deterrence against aggression is lost with just a few unfortunate words or a relatively minor gesture. Secretary of State Dean Acheson gave a comprehensive address to the National Press Club in early 1950. Either intentionally or by accident, he mentioned that South Korea was beyond the American defense perimeter. Communist North Korea, and later China, agreed. War broke out six months later. Well before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, and sent aid to communist rebels in Central America, President Jimmy Carter announced that America had lost its "inordinate fear of communism." In 1981, Britain, as a goodwill gesture in the growing Falkland Islands dispute, promised to withdraw a tiny warship from the islands. But to the Argentine dictatorship, that reset-button diplomacy was seen as appeasement. It convinced them that the United Kingdom was no longer the nation of Admiral Nelson, the Duke of Wellington and Winston Churchill. So Argentina invaded the Falklands. Why, after a horrendous war with Iran, would Saddam Hussein have risked another one with Kuwait? Perhaps because he believed that the United States would not stop him. That was a logical inference when American ambassador April Glaspie told him, "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait ... the Kuwait issue is not associated with America." Saddam invaded a little over a week later. These examples could be expanded and serve as warnings. In the last 18 months, the Obama administration has made a number of seemingly insignificant remarks and gestures — many well-intended and reasoned — that might be interpreted as a new U.S. indifference to aggression. Consider the number of apologies Obama has issued to various states that suggest we, not others, are the problem. To Turkey, Obama said we had often been at fault, and added remorse for slavery and our treatment of Native Americans. To Russia, he emphasized a need for an American diplomatic reset button. To the Japanese, he touched on the brutal way America ended World War II. To the world at large, Obama apologized for Guantanamo Bay, the war on terror, and some activities of the CIA. To Latin America, he rued our past insensitive diplomacy. To the G-20, he lamented America's prior rude behavior. To the Muslim world, he confessed to wrong policies and past mistakes. To Europe, he apologized for our occasionally strained relations. To the United Nations, he said he felt bad about America's unilateral behavior. In addition, Obama has bowed to Saudi autocrats and Chinese dictators. In morally equivalent fashion, an Obama subordinate brought up to human-rights violator China the new Arizona immigration law. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested that we would be neutral in a new and growing Falklands Island dispute. And America has put Israel on notice that the old close relationship is changing. Turkey is growing increasingly anti-American. A newly aggressive Russia is beaming that we have caved on a number of contentious issues. The Japanese are distancing themselves from America. British, French and German leaders are increasingly wary of the United States. The Mexican president criticizes Arizona from the White House lawn. War is now more, not less, likely in the Middle East. In Latin America, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela are as hostile to the U.S. as ever. Brazil is now seeking to assert new authority contrary to U.S. policies. The lesson? Even little words and gestures still matter in high-stakes international relations. Bad actors look hard for even the smallest sign that they might get away with aggression without consequences. A deferential and apologetic President Obama may think he is making those abroad like us — and he may be right in some cases. But if history is any guide, aggressive powers are paying close attention to these seemingly insignificant signs Soon, they may turn their wild ideas into concrete aggression — once they convince themselves that America neither wants to nor is able to stop them. Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: LISTEN WITH CARE
Posted by Arlene Kushner, July 1, 2010. |
|
In my last posting, I referred to PA president Mahmoud Abbas wearing his "moderate" suit. Well, he's still wearing it. Abbas, reaching out to the Israeli public, is currently engaged in what Herb Keinon of the JPost refers to as a "charm offensive." I caution you to be on your guard with regard to the sincerity of his words. They are no more than politically expedient surface, devoid of depth that will translate into action. In a briefing for Hebrew media given in Ramallah on Tuesday night, Abbas said he thinks of Netanyahu as a partner for negotiations: "My first and last partner is the Israeli government, that is the government that was elected and the one we will work with." Asked about his (Holocaust-denying) doctoral thesis, "The Secret Connection Between the Nazis and the Leaders of the Zionist Movement," he responded, "You say that six million were killed, I don't deny it." ~~~~~~~~~~ At the press briefing, Abbas declared himself ready for face to face negotiations when Netanyahu provides "answers" with regard to borders and security. Explaining his position, he said, "Answers like these are necessary to see if we are speaking the same language, and then it will be possible to continue. It is preferable that direct talks will not explode after 10 minutes, and then who knows when we will be able to renew negotiations again...Is there an agreement to discuss the border and security issues? We don't know." This may provide a semblance of reasonableness, but on examination it is not reasonable at all. He is not insisting that he needs to know if Israel will discuss borders and security should the two parties come face to face. He, rather, wants to know if Israel will, up front, agree to his preconditions. He has made it clear that the PA call is for a Palestinian state along the '67 border (sic). So "discussing" this means drawing the exact line, with alternations in the line based on a one to one ratio. That is, for every square kilometer of land Israel kept past the Green Line the PA would get an equivalent area inside Green Line Israel. That is what would need to be discussed. Similarly with the issue of security: Netanyahu has spoken about the need to station Israeli troops on the eastern border of a future Palestinian state. Abbas says nothing doing — this is not what's up for discussion. Rather, what could be discussed is which international party, such as UNIFIL (try to control your laughter), might be stationed there to provide Israel with security. Abbas further said he would not compromise on the issue of Jerusalem, i.e., eastern Jerusalem as their capital. ~~~~~~~~~~ It should be noted that in broad terms what Abbas is demanding is an agreement by Netanyahu to go back to the place where negotiations with Olmert left off. Netanyahu made it clear from the beginning that he would not do this. As nothing was signed, we have no obligation to do so. Not only is Netanyahu, for all his faults, not Olmert (praise Heaven), the current government would not sit still for this, nor would the populace of this nation. Netanyahu — with his eye undoubtedly on the upcoming visit with Obama — is expressing great eagerness for face to face talks. But without preconditions. Stay tuned. ~~~~~~~~~~ Khaled Abu Toameh is a journalist whom I cite often, because I rely on the solidness of his research and his professional integrity. An Israeli citizen, he is an Arabic-speaking Muslim who identifies as Palestinian — he can go places I cannot and secure information directly that I cannot. Here I would like to share with you what he has to say about the peace talks and questions Washington should be asking: "Even if Israel and the Palestinian Authority were to reach a peace agreement sometime in the near future, it is certain that the Palestinian Authority would not be able to implement it or sell it to a majority of Palestinians... ~~~~~~~~~~ This, my friends, should be sent to every elected representative in Congress. Ask them why the government is investing time and prestige in a process that is doomed to fail? For your Congresspersons:
For your Senators:
~~~~~~~~~~ Back in the winter, at the Jerusalem Conference, Netanyahu advisor Ron Dermer spoke; I then shared a line of thinking he had advanced that I thought had considerable validity: Many progressives or centrist-left people in the US, he said, ardently support the Palestinian Authority, while ignoring, or remaining oblivious to, the fact that the Palestinian Arab culture embraces values that are the antithesis of what they — the progressives, etc. — support: women's rights, rights for homosexuals, etc. What is required, he suggested, is a PR campaign that exposes the values of the Palestinian Arab culture, and promotes the liberal approach of Israel with regard to these issues. This, he thought, would turn around at least some progressives, etc. with regard to their attitudes towards Israel. Now it turns out that Wall Street Journal foreign affairs columnist (and former editor of the JPost) Bret Stephens is thinking along the same lines. I share here a video in which he explains the approach he uses when speaking to groups that tend to be supportive of the Palestinians. The advantage of Stephen's approach is that it can be activated by individuals and does not depend on a major PR campaign. Many of us may find that his technique is useful and that it yields positive results. We need every approach that is available to us in these difficult times:
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
UN FALK: J'SLM ACTIONS ILLEGAL; PRISONER EXCHANGE; PA CHILD'S MURDER SONG SWEEPS ARAB WORLD
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, July 1, 2010. |
|
ABBAS TALKS WITH U.S. JEWISH LEADERS Palestinian Authority (P.A.) head Abbas answered questions from 30 U.S. Jewish leaders for 90 minutes, in Washington, DC. The event occurred on June 9, but the transcript was just made available. He condemned violence, praised peace, recognized the Jewish connection to the Holy Land, vowed to fight incitement against Israel on his airwaves and textbooks, said he sent representatives to Holocaust commemoration in Eastern Europe, and acknowledged Israeli security concerns in a new state, but he said he would have foreign troops safeguard the peace. Abbas relishes the opportunity for more meetings with Jewish leaders, including ones in France. Former White House aide Elliot Abrams, however, found that participants not in the "peace camp" remained skeptical about Abbas' vague and evasive statements (IMRA, 6/30/10). Ideologues give themselves euphemistic names. One is "peace camp," for those whose policies of Israeli withdrawal enable the Arabs to make more war. Another is the foreign policy school of "realism," for the unrealistic policies of appeasement. A sad fact about many of my fellow Jews is that a gentile's mere pat on the back persuades them of friendship. Nor do they inform themselves enough to realize when they are being lied to. Arafat long has denied the Jewish connection to Israel and the Temples in Jerusalem. He undoubtedly will resume denying it upon returning to Ramallah. The Arabs often talk one way in Arabic and another in English. Likewise, Abbas controls P.A. broadcasting and textbook purchase. He already had promised, as Arafat did before him, to eliminate incitement from the books. But he does not. He does his share of incitement by honoring terrorists. Therefore, his condemnation of violence, in front of a Jewish audience, is not sincere. Indeed, he has threatened violence unless he gets his way in negotiations. He can say, now, that he would have foreign troops safeguard the peace, not that they are reliable. But once in control of a sovereign state, he would not be bound by a pre-statehood promise. Abbas tried to lull suspicions in a Jewish audience by referring to sending a P.A. representative to a Holocaust memorial ceremonial in Eastern Europe. He did not say that the representative apologized for Arafat's relative organizing two Muslims divisions that participated in exterminating Jews. Neither did he repudiate his thesis, which was in support of Holocaust denial. Why didn't those Jewish leaders confront Abbas with his obvious deceit? Why didn't they ask, in view of those several attempted deceptions, why should they believe him on anything? Since he was lying about his friendliness towards the Jewish people, he must really be interested in, as jihad requires, conquering Israel. Jewish leaders need study the enemy and the issue. How can they still not know that deception is a tactic jihadists consider honorable? Naivetétoward an existential enemy is dangerous and inexcusable.
IRAN GIVES SYRIA RADAR It now is disclosed that Iran furnished Syria with up-to-date radar a year ago. Neither Israel nor the U.S. wanted to raise tensions. When installed, Syria could detect an Israeli raid not only against it and against Hizbullah, but also against Iran. Hizbullah could use the radar to boost the accuracy of its own missile strikes against Israel. Iran denies transferring radar and long-range missiles to Hizbullah, which would violate a 2007 UN Security Council resolution against such transfers. Somebody with money has been turning Hizbullah into a formidable army. Syrian and Israeli officials say that prior negotiations with Syria had made "progress." Iran's steady arming of Syria and Hizbullah, however, raise questions about the efficacy of Obama's policy of trying to "engage" with them (Charles Levinson, Jay Solomon, Farnaz Fassihi, Wall St. J., 7/1/10, A1). What "progress?" To the contrary, diplomats use that term to refer to Israeli concessions to existential enemies. Rather than progress, it weakens security against further Islamic aggression, thereby enabling it. Those Israeli diplomats deceive themselves. Whether Syria is aggressive now for dynastic ambition, Hizbullah for Islamist ambition, and Iran for national and jihadist ambition, they do not reform their aggressive designs. They use diplomacy to advance their war aims. Westerners need to become sophisticated about that. Iran steadily arms its proxies. The build-up is significant but unhindered. The West seems to be waiting, again, until it is too late to avoid terrible destruction of it. Obama's notion that Obama can win over fanatics is naïve, at best. When Iran, Syria, and Hizbullah are ready, there will be plenty of tension, regardless of what self-restraint others present. Another misconception is about weapons being solely defensive. Radar is understood to be dual purpose, both offensive and defensive. It can defend an attacking force. Less understood are the dual purposes of anti-aircraft missiles. They can be used to protect an aggressor's offensive forces. Egypt used them that way in the 1973 war. They also can be used to thwart retaliation against aggression or overflights intended to detect coming aggression.
ISRAEL RETALIATES AGAINST HAMAS In retaliation for the rocket attack from Gaza that struck an Israeli packing plant, the IDF bombed three targets in Gaza. One was a tunnel for smuggling troops into Israel. Another was an explosives laboratory. The third was a Hamas headquarters. The IDF reported accurate hits (Arutz-7, 7/1/10). The Hamas attack was against a civilian structure. The Israeli retaliation was against military facilities. The Hamas attack is a ware crime. The Israeli retaliation is legitimate self-defense. Speaking of defensive measures, a reader disputed my reporting on the danger of Syria's new radar on the grounds that radar does not kill people. His carp is technically true but foolishly impractical, and, therefore, misleading. The article's explanation is that radar makes possible the defense of aggressor forces. That is a basic military concept. The explanation went further, to state that radar can improve the accuracy of Hizbullah's offensive missiles. The explanation came from the Wall St. Journal report. It is realistic. Realism, however, does not impress people in a state of denial. In this state of denial, people merely condemn articles that make a clear case, and fail to show the articles to be faulty. Such condemnation reflects either closed minds or unscrupulous propaganda. The same reader's comment also suggested that if Israel gave up its radar, so would Syria. Unscrupulous aggressors, such as Syria, Hizbullah, and Iran do not act like that. They already are in violation of mandatory Security Council resolutions intended to stop their aggression. Their mission is to destroy Israel. The reader invites one to indulge in the fantasy of the non-jihadist side disarming and living happily ever after.
UN RAPPORTEUR FALK CALLS JERUSALEM ACTIONS ILLEGAL 
UN Rapporteur Richard Falk calls certain Israeli actions in Jerusalem illegal. Mr. Falk is a one-world-government advocate, who compares deaths in Gaza with the Holocaust, and calls the Iraqi war illegal and suicide bombing legal. Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton said that Falk was given his post in order to issue biased reports. Falk contends that Israel is an occupying power in Jerusalem. He further contends that as a result, Israel has no right to demolish any houses for having been built illegally by squatters on land zoned for an archaeological park. The area in question is the City of David, kept as public land by the Ottoman, Mandatory, and Jordanian authorities. Another Israeli action he calls illegal is revocation of Jerusalem residency permits for four Hamas members convicted of gruesome terrorism. One, Abu Teir, was released from a life sentence for having run Hamas' military arm, responsible for many shootings, bombings, a kidnapping, and a personal attempt to poison Israel's water supply. Israel allows him to serve as a Palestinian Authority legislator (Arutz-7, 7/1/10). Israel cannot reasonably be considered an occupier of part of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was part of the same Mandate set up for eventual Jewish sovereignty. Jerusalem did not belong to any one else, "occupation" being the control over part or all of another sovereign state. Even then, a country victimized by aggression, as Israel was in 1948 and 1967, has a right to keep some of an aggressor's territory to prevent further aggression. Israel did annex eastern Jerusalem. It belongs to Israel now, and why not, judging by history? Suppose eastern Jerusalem were occupied. Does that mean there should be anarchy, and the administering power should let individuals steal public land reserved for public amenities? Mr. Falk makes not sense. But then, that is not his purpose, is it! How does Falk have the temerity to compare the Holocaust, in which Germany committed genocide against six million civilians, with Israel self-defense in Gaza, that killed 1,400 people, mostly terrorists and the rest of whom were deliberately put in harm's way by the terrorists! Falk is exaggerating irrationally. That kind of wild talk impugns his rulings in general. He is too biased for the job. The residency permit issue seems more complicated. However, a country has a right to expel non-citizens who are in an illegal, terrorist organization, and in the case of Abu Teir, a member of the government at war with Israel. One question is why many terrorists get released and why none get executed. Another question is why Falk expressed shock over Teir's residency permit and not over his release from prison.
PALESTINIAN ARAB CHILDREN SONG OF MURDER SWEEPS ARAB WORLD A Palestinian Arab children's choir made a video of waging war and terrorism on infidels, in the case, on Jews, with Paradise the reward. The song has spread throughout the Arab world, a great hit there. Perverted ideals (IMRA, 7/1/10). A critic of mine ignores all the extensive Arab crimes and wrongdoing cited, such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, exclusive control, and indoctrination in hatred. He then falsely attributes such deeds or aspirations to Zionism. Unscrupulous. The indoctrination in hatred documented above is similar to the Saudi textbooks' bigotry documented the other day and the Palestinian Authority textbooks' bigotry documented some time ago. Neither Zionist ideology nor schools indulge in the practice. Israeli schools teach tolerance. Consider exclusive control and possession. An Arab in the Palestinian Authority faces capital punishment if he sells any land to a Jew. Same for Jordan, except it was changed to life imprisonment. Neither Zionist ideology nor practice requires exclusive Jewish control and possession of Israel. There, Arabs sit in the Knesset and on the judicial bench. Consider ethnic cleansing and genocide. The Muslims have been squeezing the former Christian majority out of the Middle East, Pakistan, and Kashmir for a long time. They forced 850,000 Jews out of Arab states and thousands out of parts of Judea-Samaria. Saddam was poison-gassing the Kurds, who are Muslim but not Arab. Sudan dispossessed millions and murdered hundreds of thousands for being non-Muslims and Muslim but not Arab. Muslim are turning parts of Europe into zones in which non-Muslims get attacked if they enter in their own country. Neither Zionist ideology nor practice support ethnic cleansing. As explained recently and often, most Arabs fled from the early wars, on their own. Israel expelled a small number for military security reasons, but allowed 150,000 to stay and at least 50,000 more to enter. If Israel were interested in ethnic cleansing, it would not have asked the Arabs to stay, in the1948 war, as it did. It would not have barred Arabs from fleeing, in the 1967 war, as it did. It would have used the occasion to expel them all. Even now, its negotiators do not propose, when the Arabs demand an exclusively Arab state, that they take In Israel's Arabs, to leave it an exclusively Jewish state. Readers should beware of critics who turn history upside down and simply defame everything Israel does and rebuke nothing the Arabs do.
ISRAEL ON PRISONER EXCHANGE PM Netanyahu said that his country is united in seeking the release of Gilad Shalit from his kidnappers in Gaza. He reminded his people that Israel tries hard and risks much, to free captives. His own brother was killed in the Entebbe rescue. Benjamin Netanyahu, himself, was wounded in a rescue attempt at Ben-Gurion airport. However, he said that the country would not pay excessively for Mr. Shalit's release. To explain what makes some prices too high, he cited the Jibril deal of 1985, when Israel released 1,185 terrorists. Almost half returned to terrorism. They murdered dozens of Israelis. They formed the nucleus of the first Intifada, which killed hundreds of Israelis. They wounded many others. In 2004, Israel released 100 terrorists in exchange for Tannenbaum and two cadavers. The released terrorists have murdered 27 Israelis since then. Then Netanyahu turns around and says he would agree to release 1,000 terrorists in exchange for Shalit. He has two conditions, however, which Hamas rejects. One is to bar them from Judea-Samaria, where they could sneak into Israelis' towns and commit more murders. He thinks that is why Hamas insists they be allowed to go to Judea-Samaria. The other condition is not to include terrorist leaders and mass-murderers, who would boost Hamas' terrorist capabilities (IMRA, 7/1/10). Do the math on the Tannenbaum deal. To regain one live Israeli, not a reputable one, either, Israel released enough terrorists to get 27 Israelis killed and many wounded, and the toll may increase. Rescue 1, doom 27. Is that a wise deal for Israel or fair to Israelis? Ignoring the Muslim Arab culture of murder, a reader suggest that Israel not retain Israel as a Jewish state but be "a state of all its citizens." That is a euphemism for letting the Arabs immigrate until they become a majority and take over. The reader claims that the Mideast would welcome Israel as a state of all its people. His fantasy fails to take into account that the Arab states reject the concept for themselves. Islam requires Muslims to treat non-Muslims and even Muslim women as second class or worse. With the trend in the Arab world of considering the Jews as an inferior race, the Muslim Arabs are changing their goal from apartheid to racist genocide. Not that that reader notices.
WHY ISRAEL CAN'T DRAW A MAP FOR ABBAS 
Why can't Israel give him a map of proposed borders and security arrangements before direct negotiations? So Abbas complains. One might think that PM Netanyahu were procrastinating. Actually, he is being prudent. The borders would depend on appropriate security arrangements. As soon as Netanyahu were to propose borders, the map would take on a life of its own. The rest of the world would forget about their being conditioned on security arrangements. Israel would get borders without the requisite security. Abbas knows it. If President Obama were serious about making a secure arrangement, he would support Netanyahu on this (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 7/1/10). A poll shows that Palestinian Arabs by almost 2:1 would deny Israel the old Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and their holiest site. The Palestinian Arabs are split between Hamas and Fatah. If Abbas tried to make any concessions, he would be repudiated. The Arabs are exclusivist about the country (same source). Abbas appears to be abusing the indirect negotiations to keep the anti-Israel Obama administration involved in pushing Israel in pro-Arab ways, rather than negotiate directly. Not negotiating directly is a way that these jihadists feel preserves their honor. What is the point of negotiating, when the Arab side does not want peace but conquest? For peace, we must wait for Islam to reform its intolerance and violence. We certainly must wait for the radical branch to be routed. Although the U.S. criticizes Israel for minor disagreements with it and not for anything wrong on its part, and the U.S. does not take seriously the Palestinian Authority grooming a whole generation in hatred and violence, readers claim that Israel controls the U.S.. I asked one reader how he supposed that tiny country could control the superpower (that arms its enemies). He replied, by blackmail and elections. He mentioned no evidence. We have had Presidents like the incumbent, and most Secretaries of State, who are anti-Israel. It is true that Congressional candidates would lose more often if they were anti-Israel. That is not a case of Israel controlling the elections, however. The polls show that Americans favor Israel. How can one say a country is blackmailing another, without evidence? How long and how far could blackmail of the U.S. go? It is more likely that the U.S. can blackmail corrupt Israeli politicians, such as Peres, Barak, Olmert, and Sharon. The U.S. also can threaten Israel. I have given more than a dozen examples of the U.S. acting against Israel, and in so doing, acting against the U.S. national interest. Anti-Zionists never notice such examples. It would spoil their scenario. They live in a murky world of conspiracy theory and unsupported denunciation.
EASED EMBARGO COLLAPSES TUNNEL TRAFFIC 
Israel's contemplated easing of the embargo has collapsed not the Gaza tunnels but traffic through them. Gaza merchants are waiting to see which items are taken off the embargo. Those items they could get for about a third less money, if they come through Israel. The tunnel operators wonder whether they still could make a living from smuggling in the remaining items. Their loss of business would reduce income for Hamas, which taxes the tunnel traffic. The tunnels are a few yards apart. A tent covers each tunnel entrance. On busy days, generators hum and trucks pull up for deliveries (IMRA, 7/1/10). Picture the hundreds of tents alongside each other, the generators and the trucks. Now try to understand the difficulty Egypt professes in finding and eradicating the tunnels! Gaza has few natural resources, but Iran is blessed with them. A reader claimed that some countries want to take over Iran, to get at its minerals. Evidence? None. Accusation: strong. The accusation does not make sense. The U.S. is long past its brief imperialist phase. It does not take over countries for minerals. It still may fight for open trade routes and in self-defense, although with President Obama, one does not know if it would. But the U.S. need not go to a ruinous war to seize a country for its minerals, when it can buy what it needs for money that the sellers want. One could say that the U.S. freedom to buy from other countries is being crimped by China's tremendous purchases of natural resources and its subsidizing of countries to foster such sales. People said the same thing about the U.S. in the Iraq war. But the U.S. did not seize Iraq. The U.S. did not take over Iraqi oil. Then why think the U.S. would take over Iranian oil? It makes more sense to see that the U.S. is concerned, as it maintains, that the government Iran, which threatens other countries and hates the U.S., is developing nuclear weapons. All Iran has to do is comply with its nuclear treaty and UN resolutions, and no war.
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
READER-SELECTED VIDEOS
Posted by Various Readers, July, 2010. |
|
"Joseph Jonathan" an awareness-raising song about Jonathan Pollard From J4JPnews (29jul10) People often ask us what they can do to help Jonathan, and we maintain that each person knows best what their own contribution to the struggle for justice can be. We received the following email from Andy Gross, the author of a song about Jonathan which was posted to the J4JP website song page some years ago. Andy couldn't rest until he completed a video to encourage others to get involved. Thanks Andy! Song: Joseph Jonathan by Andy Gross See also: For audio file of song and written lyrics click here. PA Is Rich From Taking Charity From Daily Alert (30jul10) The Palestinian Authority receives more humanitarian aid per capita than any other country in the world. The billions of dollars that are meant for schools, hospitals and infrastructure have been spent on luxury villas, casinos and payments to terrorist Palestinian Corruption and Humanitarian Aid France In Civil War From BE Shep (27jul10) Obama sealed his records to conceal the truth From Arny Barnie (27jul10) Obama sealed his records to conceal the truth after being elected. The Mass Liberal Media is aiding and abetting a cover-up Candidate For US Senate Hector Maldonado Music video: invest in Hamas From Boris Celser (26jul10) Candidate For US Senate Hector Maldonado Dubious activities of UNRWA From Boris Celser(26jul10) FreePollard From (26jul10) "The median sentence for the offense Pollard committed — passing classified information to an ally, with no intent to harm the US — is 2 to 4 years. Pollard is in his 25th year of a life sentence with no end in sight.This brief video is a wake up call to one and all. Silence in the face of such a grave, long-lived injustice is tantamount to complicity." Jonathan Pollard Video #4 From Justice for Jonathan Pollard (25jul10) Caroline Glick on the Media War against Israel From Boris Celser (23jul10) A mixed-faith audience of West Coast, pro-Israel activists assembled onWednesday on 21 July 2010 in Luxe Hotel in West Los Angeles, to meet with Jerusalem Post political affairs analyst, Caroline Glick. In this 4-part speech video, the Center for Security Policy's Ms. Glick alleges that the mainstream media has been co-opted by a nefarious political campaign to defame Israel's legitimacy. She explains this political agenda and some of the techniques employed. Three Surprises about Islam From Yuval (20jul10) This is a most important video about three things you probably do not know about Islam. Please watch the entire clip, than think what is the real reason behind the Mosque near ground zero. Again and again, before you make up your mind about something, first study the facts. This is also true for Mayor Blumberg. Israel News Spoof From Laureen Moe (19jul10) Imperial History of the Middle East American Hezbollah — Time To Get Worried? From FSM Security (16jul10) Have You Chosen Your Muslim Name Yet? From Ben Ami (15jul10) ... pure truth, and utterly brilliant A British View Of Saudi Arabia From Sheridan Neimark (15jul10) Unemployment Map for the United States...astounding From John J. Facino, Sr. (14jul10) Patrick Henry Panda's "OBAMANANZA!" From Rock Peters (14jul10) Jonathan Pollard. Video #3 From Justice For Jonathan Pollard (14jul10) Youth Plant 'Facts on the Ground' at Gush Etzion From (14jul10) The agricultural camp for youth at Netzer begun this past Sunday. As we remember the destruction of the Temple, in Netzer in Gush Etzion, the youth are engaged in redemption, actual redemption. Sixty youth went to work on plots of state lands that the Arabs and international, anti-Israeli, activists are trying to steal from the Jewish people. The goal is to work these areas, and to plant olive trees and vines. Rescue in Wadi Kelt From Paul Rotenberg (13jul10) Networks Refuse to Run Ad to stop the Ground Zero Mosque From John J. Facino, Sr. (13jul10) How do you feel about leather-clad, baton-wielding New Black Panthers "patrolling" your local polling place? Or the planting of a monstrous 13-story mosque at Ground Zero? What about NASA's Muslim outreach...the NAACP's race-fueled assault on the Tea Party...and Jeremiah Wright's enduring influence over Barrack Obama? Worrisome, yes. Outrageous, even. But random, isolated incidents? Not a chance. We are developing an investigation that will demonstrate these events are calculated elements of a grand and poisonous strategy to divide, dispirit, and diminish The Left's political adversaries. In other words, you and me. Kill the Ground Zero Mosque TV ad refused. Rabbi Gideon Perl From Women in Green (13jul10) Rabbi Gideon Perl, Regional Rabbi of Gush Etzion, calls to support our operation "Establishing Facts on the ground." Our agricultural youth work camp started two days ago with, thank G-d, 60 youth aged 14-18 redeeming the land. Seeing these youth digging holes, connecting the waterpipes, weeding and planting, is the most heartwarming sight ever. A Song and Prayer for Gilad Shalit: Take a Little Time to Pray From Yaakov Katz (13jul10) "A 78-year-old Jerusalem Jewish resident, Elchanan Berkovitz, and a Northern Ireland Christian, Jim Clint, have teamed up to produce an extraordinary video and song for kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, who has been in captivity under the guard of Hamas and allied terrorists since June 25, 2006." Song and Prayer for Gilad Shalit Interesting timing ... Coincidence, or Judgment of GOD? From Carrie Devorah (13jul10) We need to pray for our nation. Goodbye Britain (video of Muslim growth) From Victor Sharpe(12jul10) How long before this is America? Europe has long lost it's spiritual compass. Beautiful cathedrals are empty other than when tourists come through.Not only is there a spiritual vacuum, but there is a major difference in birth rates of Muslims vs non Muslims.See attachment of demography around the world Muslim population increases in Britain VERY IMPORTANT: Chris Mitchell interviews Eli Hertz From Eli E. Hertz (12jul10) 90th Anniversary Of The San Remo Conference: when the International Community stated Jews owned the Land of Israel and the world had the obligation to help the Jews settle the land.. Open Message to Dearborn Police Chief Ronald Haddad From Yaacov Levi (12jul10) Welcome to Dearborn, the city where Muslims are free to assault Christians, where hate messages abound, where Christians are arrested for holding discussions on public streets, where police harass and bully Christians who try to distribute copies of the Gospel. Leading the charge for Sharia in Dearborn is Police Chief Ronald Haddad, who refuses to return our illegally seized video cameras. As of this posting, it's been two and a half weeks since Haddad's officers stole thousands of dollars worth of video equipment, and more than two weeks since he was informed that his actions were illegal. There's been no response from Haddad yet. Please help me publicize his campaign against the Constitution. Letter To Dearborn police chief Police chief enforces sharia law Obama's End Game Revealed! From David Pisanti (11jul10) Stages of economic destabilzation. How a Communist takeover happens Stop Iran Now! From One Jerusalem (11jul10) Kill the Ground Zero Mosque From Morris Sadek (11jul10) My fellow Americans, we cannot allow a shrine to the 9/11 terrorists to be built on the very ground where they slaughtered more than three thousand Americans. I know this sounds beyond absurd but unless we act now — and with your essential help — the radical Islamic terrorists at war with America will erect a monument to their "victory" on September 11, 2001. An interview by Peter Robinson of Human Events From John J. Facino, Sr. (11jul10) This week's video is with Michael Boskin and Edward Lazear, economic experts and former chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisors. They discuss the worst recession since WWII, the weak economic recovery, and the high unemployment rate. PM Netanyahu speaking with Larry King and Pres Obama, etc. From Laureen Moe (10jul10) Netanyahu Addresses Jewish Leaders CNN "Larry King Live" Interview with PM Netanyahu ABC interview: Peace with Palestinians CNN. Middle East peace process reviewed: Ambassador Michael Oren Take a good look at the sign he is holding! From Faultline USA (10jul10)
A Picture Speaks 1000 Words From BenAmi (10jul10)
Hawaiian official From Fred Reifenberg (10jul10) IF, and when this is publicized by American citizens, willing to go as high as the Supreme court, and the world media has the guts to check it out and print this, some fire works, and not for the 4th of July, and bound to explode. Imagine a foreigner, running the USA, and the world, and those that funded him, some I feel certain knew from the beginning. Wonder what Bankster clan, or powerful groups are behind it all. Opera at the heart of Tel Aviv's Dizengoff From Doris Wise Montrose (9jul10)
Opera at the heart of Tel Aviv's Dizengoff Senate Candidate considering Obama Birth-certificate Lawsuit From John J Facino, Sr. (9jul10) Future President of the USA? Allen West From Fred Reifenberg (9jul10) Where there's life there's hope....? Religion of Peace on the march From Boris Celser (8jul10) This is riveting From John Facino, Sr (8jul10) Its not enjoyable, it is riveting! When you are done pass it on too, I think its important... If you are a vet, I say, Welcome home brother. Immigrant Anchor Babies From FSM Security Update (8jul10)
New York Times and the Settlers From Helen Freedman(7jul10) For those who haven't seen this, a lengthy article appeared in the NY Times today, July 6, the purpose of which was to attack philanthropists who donate money to communities in Israel that are over the green line — in Judea and Samaria — which the Times refers to as the West Bank. Although I was quoted only once in the 5000 word article, page 10 of the paper carried a four column photo of me, Charlie, and my AFSI Chizuk group at a community in the Shomron. My organization, Americans For a Safe Israel, was named, and I was singled out by name. That was very flattering — and for people who only look at pictures, perhaps it will be good publicity for the organization. It is disappointing that even journalists who know better are somehow trapped into writing defamatory articles. One would almost think the Times is working for Obama. At any rate — look at the slide show. Some of the photos are beautiful — and you'll find Charlie and me and the group in the fourth or fifth slide. Copy and paste the first link. If you have the stomach for the whole article, the 2nd link will take you there. I'm interested in your comments.
Hizb-ut-Tahrir Australia Spokesman Eviscerated on Live TV From Boris Celser (7jul10) We need for the government, and the BBC and other media outlets to grow balls and do the same here.... Harry's Place: hizb-ut-tahrir spokesman eviscerated on live tv/ Forced to Flee. Israel's African Migrants From (7jul10) African migrants are paying money and risking their lives to come to Israel. (From IRIN Middle East.) Problem with Free Shalit campaign From Daniel Greenfield (7jul10) ...."Pressure on Netanyahu... not Hamas. Latma has a devastating video satire with English subtitles on the kind of stupidity the Free Shalit campaign has unleashed in Israel. The bottom line is that Shalit is a subset of a much larger problem, which can only be solved by removing Hamas from Gaza.." The Golden Report From Jerry Golden (6jul10) Warsaw Ghetto graffiti'ed From Carrie Devorah (5jul10) Being launched this week nationwide on Fox and MSNBC From Alex Grobman (5jul10) Go Girl, GO!!! One Brave Lady!! From Laureen Moe (5jul10) Secure Borders From Dave Alpern (3jul10) This film by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) is excellent for understanding Israel's critical security needs in any serious and viable peace agreement. The upper film is in Hebrew, while the lower film is in English. The world's greatest dancers from GEORGIA From Fred Reifenberg (3jul10) "Obama Most Radical US President ever" From BE Shep (3jul10) "Obama Most Radical US President ever" states Yale PhD, Harvard Prof, R. Richard Rubinstein. Powerful New Song — in defense of Israel From US4Israel (2jul10) There is an amazing musician from Neve Daniel named Yedida Freilich. Emotive beautiful lyrics and music from a young woman who has already lost her home in Gush Katif (Gaza) and her concern for Israel as a whole in these tough post Gaza flotilla times. Short and poignant — powerful! She has just come out with and extremely powerful song called "Only Israel." Write us at us4israel@gmail.com about any aspect of supporting Israel's rights and overcoming anti-Semitism toward Israel and Israelis If you would like to be one of the first to hear it and see the music video, here is the link: Jonathan Pollard From Justice 4 Jonathan Pollard (2jul10) It's time to rock Obama's world! From Rock Peters WWW.GODSAVEUSA.COM (2jul10) America's 4th of July message, Patrick Henry Panda says: Obama You're a dummy! Bret Stephens talking From Susana K-M (1jul10) I share here a video in which Wall Street Journal foreign affairs columnist Bret Stephens explains the approach he uses when speaking to the younger generation. 90-second you tube video of US Congressman from Indiana From Sheridan Neimark (1jul10)
This Congressman besides being on Israel's side poses a very good question. What are Israel's defensible borders? From Yaacov Levi(1jul10) Theft from Tesco From Boris Celser (1jul10) "Dear Sirs The following link leaves nothing to the imagination. This is from one of your stores somewhere in Wales. Unless you can assure me that the perpetrators of this outrage and vandalism, (who are breaking UK law by stealing and destroying goods for which they have not paid whilst your security staff stand by) were arrested and will be punished by the full weight of the law, then I shall never shop at Tesco again and shall discourage my friends from doing so as well. This madness, based on hatred and lies, has to stop. For evil like this to triumph it is sufficient merely to by-stand. Please do not by-stand" Justice for Jonathan Pollard From J4JP (1jul10) J4JP experienced a much shorter wait on the line than previously. Here is a 2 minute video to watch while you are waiting! Thanks so much for your participation in this great mitzvah! |
| Home | Featured Stories | Background Information | News On The Web |