| HOME | Featured Stories | June 2008 Blog-Eds List | Background Information | News On the Web |
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers
|
ISRAEL IS BEAUTIFUL: SUNRISE AT THE DEAD SEA
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, June 30, 2008. |
|
Yehoshua Halevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT: I am fond of quoting the master photographer Ansel Adams, who said in a moment of spiritual musing, "Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click the shutter." This image required little more than setting my camera on a tripod and waiting for the curtain to rise. I did make a conscious decision to compose the shot in two equal halves, but beyond that, it's all God's show. I have been asked several times about this photo, Is the color real? A more appropriate question would be, Is this how it really looked? The answer, then, is that it depends who's looking. One of the most important lessons a budding photographer can take
into the field is an understanding of the difference between how our
eyes see and how a camera records what it "sees." Simply put, cameras
attempt to replicate images the way our eyes see them. As good as
cameras are at doing this, they are still not as good at "seeing" as
the highly complex human eye-brain system. One of the innovations in
digital camera technology is the white balance setting, which gives
the camera a reference point for color. You tell the camera what kind
of light you are working in (sunlight, shade, fluorescent, etc.) and
it uses a preset formula to establish the color relationships so that
the resulting images look natural. Most people are satisfied to use
the automatic setting and never give this a second thought. In this
shot, however, in the fatigue of dawn, I mistakenly left the camera on
a white balance setting that allowed more of the cool blue light to be
recorded and filtered out the warmer, red and yellow light of the
rising sun. The camera did what it was told to do, and my eyes,
although surprised by the dramatic results, were nevertheless quite
pleased."
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website: http://www.goldenlightimages.com
|
|
EGYPTIAN HIJAB CAMPAIGN COMPARES UNVEILED WOMEN TO UNWRAPPED CANDY
THAT ATTRACTS FLIES
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 30, 2008. |
| This was posted by Marisol on the Jihad Watch website. |
|
France 24 has posted this image, which is circulating via e-mail in
Egypt to promote the use of the hijab and niqab by Egyptian women.
From France 24
One of our Observers in Egypt received this image in a forwarded email. The message to women: Cover up to protect yourself. We ask our Observers if whether covering up really deters unwanted attention. The message is the same as that of Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, who in 2006 outraged Australians by comparing un-veiled women to uncovered meat. As usual, the notion of men having the responsibility to control
themselves, or even being able to do so, is completely absent.
Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com
|
|
EVERY MURDERER A HERO –– THE CULT OF JIHAD
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 30, 2008. |
|
This was written by Sultan Knish and it appeared yesterday
on his website
|
|
Jihad. We write it in capital letters. We argue over its definition. We place it on the same grandiose level as its perpetrators do. But Jihad is a very simple thing. It is the religious sanctification of the most cowardly and brutal crimes imaginable, from robbery to rape to murder to mutilation to massacre. Without Jihad a murderer is a murderer. With Jihad every murderer becomes a hero. As much as it rests on the occasional fanatic, Jihad rests on the criminal. It might be the fanatics who blow themselves up, but it is the criminals who create the drug, smuggling and car theft networks that finance the Jihad. It is the criminals who kidnap and behead hostages ranging from aid workers to the children of tribal leaders they want to blackmail. It is the criminals who create Jihad states to bleed dry.
It is in Iraq that the Jihad has shown its truest face, as Al Queda recruiting primarily from criminal classes unleashed a wave of brutality and death that alienated even its former Sunni allies. Yet it's also the raw reality of Jihad. At the heart of it Jihad is Indulgence, much like those distributed for the Crusaders. An Indulgence for Muslims to act out their worst impulses and crimes and be celebrated as heroes for it. Do you want to rob? Do you want to behead? Do you want to butcher children? Do you want to rape and mutilate? The socially acceptable and approved thing for a Muslim with such impulses is to become a Jihadist. The social covenant between the so-called Moderate Muslims who don't actually put themselves on the line and the various fanatics, lunatics, murderers, rapists and criminals of the Jihad is that the Jihad will turn itself against their foreign enemies, and in turn they will receive the sanctification and admiration of the Muslim world.
A Muslim murderer who kills for the Jihad becomes a hero, never mind that he's killing innocent vacation goers. A Muslim rapist in Sydney is a hero of the Jihad for "fighting for Muslim beliefs". A Muslim drug dealer in Paris is a hero for laundering Jihadi money. In Iraq, Al Queda broke this covenant and was reviled for it. Of course Muslim terrorist groups had commonly fought and oppressed Muslim civilians and each other, but never so blatantly or ruthlessly. It does not however change the general Muslim willingness to excuse Jihadi violence. Particularly when those atrocities are aimed at non-Muslims. The religious santification of crime in the Muslim world under the banner of Jihad directs violence outward and creates a feeling of pride among Muslims who know their societies are inferior to the West and must invent imaginary conspiracy theories to account for it. The butchered reporter in Pakistan, the bombed nightclub in Bali and the raped woman in Oslo give Muslims a sense of pride from their complicity in these crimes.
 The support of "Moderate Muslims" for Jihad is no different than that of the ordinary German who cheered Hitler. The timid sadist must always have monsters who do his work for him. The average Muslim may not be able to set off a roadside bomb or drive by a car in the West Bank taking aim at the children in the backseat –– but he can fund those who do and go to a rally and wave their flag if he or she is feeling bold enough. As Jihad makes every murderer into a hero, so too it makes every Muslim supporter into a murderer by vicarious proxy. Those who shout "Heil" in the stands and hold up signs reading, "We are all Hizbullah" are no less accountable than those who pull the triggers. A society, a culture, a religion that sanctifies murder has become a
Cult of Death. And though that cult may be driven by impotence and
bitter resentment over its own inferiority, it has no less marked
itself as an evil thing that the civilized world cannot –– and dare not
tolerate or abide.
Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com
|
|
OLMERT RAMBLINGS COMPETENTLY PROVE HIS INCOMPETENCE
Posted by Dr. Aaron Lerner, June 30, 2008. |
|
This is pretty long. It's somewhat difficult to follow. But most important: it's probably the most disturbing testimony of incompetence freely presented by a serving prime minister in the history of the Jewish State. The following is the English translation prepared by Prime Minister Olmert's own office of the PREPARED remarks Prime Minister Olmert presented before the cabinet yesterday. I repeat for emphasis: this is not a translation of rambling remarks he made over cigars and drinks with his pals that were captured by a microphone he thought wasn't on. These are the remarks Mr. Olmert painstakingly prepared for presentation before his cabinet before the cabinet vote to accept the bodies-terrorist trade. These remarks are available on the official website of the Prime
Minister's Office:
The original Hebrew is also available:
|
|
Outline of the Deal for the Release of the Israeli Soldiers
Kidnapped in the North
–– Today's discussion is exceptional when compared with the topics raised in Government meetings every week.
- A political or party-based decision is not what is asked of anyone, but rather: a personal, moral decision.
The facts were presented to you and have been known for quite some time:
In this context, I wish to point out:
On the other hand –– we know what happened to Udi and Eldad. The decision to bring the matter to a religious resolution –– was born out of the numerous reports that have accumulated about them. This decision began with Ofer Dekel, who is charged with dealing with this matter. It passed investigatory processes by our Intelligence bodies, a special committee comprised of senior officials from Intelligence bodies dealt with it and reached a unanimous conclusion. It was adopted by the Committee of the Heads of the Services, as well as by the Chief of General Staff, and was transferred to the Chief Military Rabbi to be dealt with as is customary. It is possible that were it not for this initiative, the details of which were known to both the mediator and the Hizbullah, the negotiations would have continued and perhaps would have ended differently. I do not know. However: the question, one of the relevant questions for us now, is whether or not it is right that we adopt the outline of the deal, the details of which were, in large part, already known; or accept the religious process which will end with the declaration that Udi and Eldad are fallen soldiers. However, if we accept this outline, doubt will continue to gnaw away, including the possibility of being cut off from them for many, many years, as happened in the case of Ron Arad. –– This drama, it should be remembered, unlike claims made in the Ron Arad case, occupied us while we were fighting in Lebanon and the entire time since then.
I said at the outset, and I reiterate now, what is on the agenda is not the negotiations in the South about which we spoke earlier in this discussion. The discussion is being held on the question of what we should do with the data which is known to us, what the significance is of making a positive decision or rejecting it, and if there is the possibility of continuing the negotiations, with regard to the families, with regard to our commitment to returning the soldiers, with regard to the future influence on similar situations in which we will be forced to bargain, including the Shalit case. In this regard: there is no escape from dealing with the fundamental and essential issue of what the obligation is for a country which sends its soldiers into battle, and they are taken captive while in its service. From our earliest days, we are taught that we do not leave men behind, wounded in the battlefield, and that we do not leave soldiers in captivity without attempting to rescue them with all our abilities and power. However, over the years we also learned that this obligation has limits. A country must have limits even when dealing with the price of freedom for soldiers, and the price for their very lives. We never thought that the question of cost could be separated from the total context which is open to discussion, from the repercussions possible in the future, and primarily from the fact that we live in a region in which the rules of the game and the basic human patterns of behavior according to which we act –– are not shared in our environment. For several years, alongside the emotional argument which breaks out and is, at times, exaggerated, alongside the completely understood emotion of the families of the kidnapped soldiers who naturally and justifiably win the sympathy of a large part of the Israeli public, there is a gnawing doubt that this same expression of our obligation, at almost any cost, is an incentive to continue this pattern of kidnappings, of blackmail, of undermining our internal morale, of an attempt to forcibly erode our deterrence capability, and eventually our ability to withstand the challenges which we will continue to face, against the enmity, the extreme fanaticism and the cruelty of our neighbors. More than once I heard, even from public, security and military authorities, and also from our highest political echelons –– that boundaries must be defined, limits must be determined and we must stand by them under all circumstances, as difficult as they may be. And I also heard, always when we need to make a decision, that this process will be undertaken the next time if, Heaven forbid, there is one. We always felt the permeating doubt and tremendous damage caused by the compromise, and we always avoid the desire to deal with the obligation to withstand the test; and doubt lingers, even when we promised that next time we would act differently, that in fact, next time as well –– we will return to the patterns we already determined, and to which we have accustomed our enemies. Has the time not arrived to make a change? Is now not the time, because we know that these are not soldiers who are still alive, but unfortunately fallen soldiers –– to say here and now, so far and no further? One thing is certain to me –– we cannot avoid determining organized, agreed-upon and firm procedures to deal with this issue in the future, and we will do so soon. There is nothing in these statements to cast even a shadow of doubt on the amazing work done by Ofer Dekel. Were it not for his persistence and determination in carrying out his mission, and at the highest level of priority, our present situation would certainly be much worse. However, even Ofer reached the conclusion months ago and until recently, that the soldiers should be declared dead and he jumpstarted the process, with my approval, but in the military-security framework, and in accordance with considerations and information that he had in his possession before the decision. I know deep in my heart what the mood is outside the walls of this building, and I do not dismiss the headlines and news reports. Unlike the others, I sat with the families a number of times, and I looked not only into their eyes, but I also felt their longing, and the tremendous emptiness that accompanied them in their lives. As I did with many bereaved families, when I met them and witnessed their pain, and accept with love their cries of pain, even when it is directed at me. I have no one else to pass these cries onto, but can only hear them and absorb all that is a part of them. And later –– to live with my pain. However, also with my conscience. In a number of cases, I shared my opinion with the family members, and I did so with a profound sense of belief that in my role as Prime Minister who must see the total reality, and that which will be, there are things I cannot do or agree to –– even if the family members see things differently, and this is inevitable. It is not easy. It is much easier to be cut off without looking straight into the eyes of the families and saying that the responsibility I bear obligates me to see things from a different perspective. We all bear the responsibility here, it does not end in the obligation to empathize with the pain of the families and their hearts' desire, but it is also to be able to say things and act in a manner which is obligated by what the future places on us. It was always so with every prime minister –– and it is so for me as well. And I am not settling an account with anyone who served before me and made decisions in his time and place. Now I must make a decision. All I said up to this point –– is a summary of my beliefs and feelings. However, I am not free to absolve myself of the general responsibility for the resolution of this meeting today –– and its repercussions. This perhaps expresses the surfeit of responsibility borne by a prime minister unlike that of the ministers, each according to his role. Nine days ago, Ofer Dekel, who is charged with the negotiations for the return of the kidnapped soldiers, presented the final outline according to which the deal was formulated. With every fiber of my being, I felt that this outline did not satisfy my expectations and hopes. On the other hand –– I was tormented by the knowledge that at the stage we had reached, the choice again is not between going through with this deal and formulating a different, more appropriate deal. If I thought there was a chance to formulate a different, more appropriate, more balanced deal at this stage, I would not hesitate to tell you and the entire people of Israel so, as well as the families of the kidnapped soldiers –– that there is no escape from making a further effort and eventually reaching another result, even at the cost of more exhausting and painful waiting. I asked myself: is it possible? I tried to think of any other possible outline, of any crack through which it would be possible to change the need for a decision regarding this outline, out of a belief that it will be possible to formulate a different outline. I carried in my heart the deep frustration and sorrow what occurred during the Ron Arad case, and of the profound disappointment in ourselves that we did not learn from the past to do that which may, may have been possible then in order to find him and know with certainty what his fate was. And I reached the conclusion that it was not advisable for the State of Israel to follow this path once again. Some may say –– that reaching this stage in which we were left with the cruel choice of receiving bodies or of, Heaven forbid, losing any connection with their fate for many years, was not necessary and was not obvious. It is very possible. This is certainly an issue that should be studied and analyzed, and we will need to learn the inevitable lessons from it, but for now- –– I believe that this is the only realistic choice, and in this choice –– the moral weight tends towards the painful compromise over the decisive refusal. I listened attentively to the brave, honest and clear analysis of the Head of the General Security Services, Yuval Diskin, and of the Head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan. I admire these two men very much for their contributions, wisdom and unparalleled experience. I heard too the incisive words of Ilan Biran, who dealt with the Ron Arad issue untiringly for seven years. My heart tells me they see a realistic, genuine and inevitable picture. However, I believe that the circumstances we have reached, perhaps not in our favor –– in which our kidnapped dead are within our grasp –– we missed the deadline to change the terms which should be undertaken according to the analysis they presented. Let us not delude ourselves. The strength of the pain over returning our dead –– will not be less than the feeling of affront from the celebrations that will be held by the opposing side. I hope that the Israeli public will know to draw the necessary conclusion from this so that it will be more prepared and mature for the next time, which already lies in wait for us. Sooner or later, we will be back here in order to be tormented yet again. I pray that our public discourse will not disparage the cost of this deal two days after it is completed, when we all understand its full significance for the future. I hope that the satisfaction that comes from the resolution of the doubts of the Regev and Goldwasser families will grant us the peace of mind and perhaps the comfort that we must take this step. I will not conclude my remarks without saying something to the people of Israel: I know that some of the public and its spokespeople, who until last night made its demand from every stage and microphone that there is a need to agree to this deal because its costs are not intolerable, that it was time to end this painful affair –– will suddenly allege weakness, concessions, a lack of determination on the part of the Government when faced with the sounds of jubilation from the squares of Beirut. Our agony, the cries of pain which were heard, are not an expression of weakness –– but rather of unparalleled moral strength. More than once, world leaders with whom I spoke about this situation and about Gilad Shalit and Ron Arad and our missing soldiers –– expressed their amazement about the emotional burden which Israeli society places on itself in this regard. I recoil from the aggressive voices which accompany our public discourse in these matters, and at times miss the restraint and internal discipline shown by other peoples. However, we are not like them, and probably never will be. A nation which is tormented by the fate of one man is a strong nation with stamina and a deterrence capability and endless determination. A nation which concedes in order to ensure life, save its wounded, bring home its dead –– is a nation which creates unbreakable bonds of mutual obligation. If we succeed in defining boundaries, lower the tone of our discourse and show inflexibility in our internal existence, and continue to fight for our lives, defend our soldiers and take care of our kidnapped soldiers –– we will project the genuine strength –– which is wondrous in its uniqueness –– which is part of our nation. Therefore, at the end of this long process, the essence of which I presented to you today, I reached the conclusion as Prime Minister of Israel that I must recommend to you to approve the proposed resolution which will bring an end to this painful episode –– even at the painful price it costs us. "Today, at the end of the meeting, the Government will discuss various issues related to the calm in Gaza [and] all issues related to advancing the steps regarding the release of Gilad Shalit. As you know, close to the Cabinet decision on the calm, I left for Egypt to discuss the issue with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and I also discussed this with senior intelligence officials. Ofer Dekel, who has been appointed by me to conduct the negotiations, had already visited Egypt and should further technical clarifications vis-à-vis the decision prove necessary, in the wake of the High Court of Justice decision, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the official who was in charge of the contacts that were held with Egypt on the issue, will give them at the end of today's meeting. At the start of the meeting, we will discuss the issue of the abducted soldiers in Lebanon, Udi Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. Every week at the Cabinet meeting, sensitive and important issues arise that determine the daily life and quality of life in the State of Israel, and sometimes even life itself. Even in the routine context of the importance of Cabinet discussions, there is no doubt that today's discussion is very special, exceptionally sensitive and perhaps has deep national-moral consequences that are not typical of the important discussions held around the Cabinet table. For two years, the Government has held negotiations via the UN Secretary-General's special mediator, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution #1701, after the Government conditioned its acceptance on the explicit, unequivocal and sharp demand to include in it the release of our abductees. We were not prepared to adopt the resolution without this issue which is of supreme moral importance to us. Throughout this period, our enemies, Hezbollah, tried every possible manipulation of Israeli society's deepest and most exposed feelings in order to influence the mood here also in order to exploit Israeli society's special moral sensitivity so as to prevent us from achieving a quick result on correct and balanced terms appropriate for such issues. I admit that I have deliberated for a long time on this issue due to its many facets –– morally, in regard to the background in which we are dealing with matters, from the perspective of the history that has accompanied these contacts and, mainly, with regard to future consequences. Indeed, I have deliberated very deeply. Even people who bear supreme responsibility in positions like mine are allowed to deliberate. Sometimes, it must be said in all honesty, it is an obligation, before reaching a decision, the consequences of which will be part of our daily lives for years to come. I have been dealing with this throughout the recent period and even the conclusions that I have drawn are not free of doubts and dilemmas that we will have to deal with for many years to come. The Government will discuss the issue today and will make a decision today. The issues will be presented in all aspects and details necessary to make this decision. In the end, we are the ministers who bear the supreme, collective responsibility for Government decisions and we will need to bear this responsibility in such a way that we will be able to look in the eyes of the members of the Goldwasser, Regev, Arad, Haran and Shalit families, and in the eyes of every citizen of the State of Israel, and mainly so that we will be able to face our own consciences and say that our consciences were clean at the time we made these critical decisions."
Dr. Aaron Lerner is Director of IMRA, Independent Media Review
and Analysis, an Israel-based news organization which provides an
extensive digest of media, polls and significant interviews and events
relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict.
Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il
Write him at imra@netvision.net.il
|
|
SARKO THE DISAPPOINTMENT
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 30, 2008. |
|
This comes from yesterday's Joshua Pundit
|
|
When he first was elected president to replace the odious Jacque Chirac, Americans were elated and gloried in the nickname given him by the French press, 'Sarko The American'. Based on recent events, I'm afraid, at least from the anti-jihad standpoint that a better nickname for him may turn out to be Sarko the Disappointment. In Afghanistan, where the French agreed to send troops as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, the French contribution remains minuscule so far, in spite of Sarkozy's promises to increase troop levels. They have a mere 400 combat troops stationed in the volatile southern and eastern regions, plus another 40 involved behind the lines training the Afghan army. Along with these forces, the French have another detachment of 650 men that are primarily involved in support duties in the more secure areas of the country. As a comparison, the French have over 2,000 men stationed in the Balkans and another 2,500 troops, along with 1,500 sailors in Lebanon as part of UNFIL, where they are doing absolutely nothing to implement UN Resolution 1701 calling for an arms embargo and the disarmament of Hezbollah. While Sarkozy has announced that he wants to bring France back into NATO, so far that hasn't happened, and given the recent revelations on the state of the French military, it's an open question on how much of an asset France would be to NATO even if they were part of it. In the Middle East, President Sarkozy has made a number of warm public statements about his support for Israel, the Iranian threat and France's commitment to Israel's security, signifying a change from the hostility of the Chirac years. In practice..well, not much has changed. France still retains a de facto embargo on arms and strategic materials to Israel, as does Britain and a number of other EU states (Germany is a notable exception). In a recent visit to the Middle East, Sarkozy made a speech before the Israeli Knesset, once again extolling his friendship for Israel and declaring that Iran's nuclear program was "unacceptable". And yet, at the same time, France has made agreements to sell nuclear technology to a number of Arab states, most of whom can be said to be hostile to Israel. Those states include the UAE, Qatar, Jordan, Libya and Algeria. Or to put it another way, Moamar Qaddafi is now getting the same sort of aid Saddam Hussein did, and from the same source! The irony is ummm...murderous. After signing the deal with Algeria last month, Sarkozy said: "The sharing of civilian nuclear technology will be one of the foundations of a pact of confidence which the West must forge with the Islamic world." The technology for a civilian nukes program and a military one are exactly the same, and so far we've had two 'Islamic bombs' to deal with already, in Pakistan and Iran. Things have worked out so well, haven't they? The French providing some more of these regimes with nuclear toys could be called a lot of things (suicidal comes to mind) but a 'pact of confidence'? In his speech to the Knesset, Sarkozy also decided that he had a right to tell Israelis where they might live and build homes, calling for Israel to halt construction of homes in East Jerusalem and in Judea and Samaria (AKA the West Bank). He also called for the establishment of a Palestinian State with Jerusalem as its capitol. "We must tell friends the truth and the truth is that Israel's security can never be assured unless an independent, modern, democratic and viable Palestinian state is established finally beside it...There can be no peace without recognising Jerusalem as the capital of two states and the guarantee of freedom of access to the holy places for all religions." I recognize that France has already ceded parts of its capitol to the Arabs, but I don't see that it has worked out all that well for the French. Sarkozy's statement was greeted with wild applause throughout the Muslim world, as you can imagine. Of course, it probably never occurred to Sarkozy that in an independent, modern and democratic Palestinian state, there would be no problem with Jews living there. Or that his description of Jerusalem with freedom of access to the holy places for all religions is what the Israelis have established..and exactly what the Arabs never permitted during their 20 year occupation of East Jerusalem and what the Palestinians have also promised to forbid in the future should the Israelis be silly enough to give them control of it. As part of Sarkozy's cozying up to the Palestinians, he had his Interior Minister, Michele Alliot-Marie, make a pilgrimage to Ramallah to lay a wreath of flowers at the tomb of Yasir Arafat, something even Condi Rice couldn't quite bring herself to do. And of course, pony up with some cash, $21 million to fund an industrial zone in the Bethlehem area supposedly to boost the Palestinian economy. Based on the famous Palestinian transparency and desire for peace, Its a safe bet that most of that money will be end up being used by Fatah to line the pockets of Abbas' cronies,consolidate its dictatorial hold on the West Bank and to fund the war against Israel. In contrast, French support for Israel so far has been limited to a few innocuous, friendly remarks. Sarkozy seems to be pursuing this course for the same reason Chirac did –– to increase France's influence and make it a global player with weight out of all proportion to its actual power. And it appears that it will continue to pursue this course of action regardless of the ultimate cost to the West, or ultimately, to France itself. This will involve considerable alignment of France with the Arab world policy-wise, just as it did during the Chirac era. The face and the rhetoric may be a bit different, but the destructive policies remain the same. Pity. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
BARGAINING FOR THE LIVING AND THE DEAD
Posted by Truth Provider, June 30, 2008. |
|
Dear friends, Articles by Moshe Arens, the former Israeli defense
minister, are rare pieces of sanity published in Israel's liberal
newspaper Haaretz.
Here is his article on the painful question of handing over
terrorist murderers in exchange for Israeli abducted soldiers and
civilians.
Moshe Arens is in full agreement with Caroline Glick whose article
in the Jerusalem Post
Your Truth Provider,
Yuval.
|
|
There was a time, not so many years ago, when the policy of Israeli governments, when one of its citizens or soldiers was abducted by a terrorist organization, was to send the Israel Defense Forces to free the hostages. It was clear that negotiating with the terrorists and agreeing to their outrageous demands was simply setting the stage for further kidnappings and higher demands in the future. It was a good policy, even though it involved risking the lives of the hostages and of those sent to free them. When in past years a policy of negotiating with terrorists for the release of hostages was adopted, it only proved the original premise. The terrorists' demands continued to escalate, and each "deal" with them only provided an incentive for further kidnappings and for ever more outrageous demands before the hostages would be released. The terrorists may have released the hostages –– dead or alive –– but each surrender to their demands only provided an incentive for additional kidnappings of Israelis and escalating demands, and put at risk Israelis, as yet unnamed, whom the terrorists would abduct in the future. In other words, they served as an incentive for the further abduction of Israelis. In June 2004, under then-prime minister Ariel Sharon and then-defense minister Shaul Mofaz, a deal was struck with Hezbollah for the return of three dead Israeli soldiers –– Benny Avraham, Adi Avitan and Omar Suad –– and the release of Elhanan Tennenbaum, in return for about 450 convicted terrorists in Israeli prisons. Whereas the three soldiers had been kidnapped while on duty in the IDF, Tennenbaum had been kidnapped while on an illegal trip in Abu Dhabi in pursuit of what he thought would be a profitable drug deal. There was no justification for the arrangement Sharon's government made in this case. One might have hoped that it would serve as a benchmark not to be exceeded n the future, and as a lesson in how not to negotiate with terrorists. Making decisions in negotiating with terrorists for the release of Israeli hostages is an agonizing matter, and ministers are not to be envied the responsibility they carry on their shoulders. However, certain principles that need to be applied are almost self-evident: 1. Whatever deal is to be struck, it should be done immediately after the kidnapping. (Remember Ron Arad.)It is clear that in the case of the negotiations for the return of IDF soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, these principles have not been observed. In full knowledge that they have been murdered by Hezbollah, the price that Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak now seem prepared to pay is scandalous. Samir Kuntar is not just a terrorist "with blood on his hands," but a cold-blooded murderer who killed a small child and her father. If anything, this deal is worse than the Tennenbaum deal. And now Gilad Shalit. Any fool understands that the Israeli government held one significant lever on Hamas in this case –– the continued blockade of Gaza and the continuation of IDF attacks on Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip. The impression given by the government that agreeing to a cease-fire with the terrorists was part and parcel of a deal for the release of Shalit was nothing less than a cheap political manipulation. One can only imagine the price that the terrorists are asking now that they are holding not only Shalit hostage, but also the residents of Sderot, Ashkelon and the settlements in the area. The Olmert government has completely mishandled a most important security matter. Now that the Olmert government is tottering and seems to about to topple, its spokesmen are insisting that in view of the many dangers Israel is facing, this is no time to change governments. In other words, don't change horses midstream. But Olmert has provided additional proof, as if additional proof were needed after the fiasco of the Second Lebanon War, that his government cannot be trusted to deal with the dangers on the horizon. The sooner they go the better Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
WHEN YOU GO ON VACATION, TAKE BLONDI WITH YOU
Posted by Naomi Ragen, June 30, 2008. |
|
Going traveling? Take Blondi with you. This comes from Yossi Zur. |
|
On March 5th 2003 Asaf, a young high school boy was on his way back from school. A suicide murderer that exploded on Asaf's bus killed him and sixteen other innocent men, women and children. Asaf was almost seventeen years old when he died and he is my son. As every young man does, Asaf would have finished high school and army service and would have gone on a trip to see the world:South America, the Far East, India or maybe Australia and New Zealand. He wanted very much to go surfing at the famous beaches in Hawaii and Australia. Asaf wanted to hike the high treks of Nepal and the Himalayas. Now I am sending Asaf on his world tour. Without a passport or a back pack, I am sending you only this picture and his spirit and ask you to help take Asaf to wherever you go. India, Thailand, New Zealand or the Chinese wall. You'll find his picture and a video at: http://www.blondi.co.il/bwt2008/archives/oldindex.html Wherever you go, take out his picture, photograph it in the place you are and email it back to me (mailto:Yossi@Blondi.co.il Yossi@Blondi.co.il). If you are not travelling take the photo in your city or town, at the mall, city stadium and even your front or back yard.
I will build Asaf's world tour photo album and post it on the internet. This way Asaf will be at all those wonderful places in the world he wasn't lucky to see. You can print a few copies of the attached picture and leave copies on your way, hang it on a bulletin board at the hotel or the guest house you stay in. leave it along the trek, put it in the visitor's book you write your experiences in. Help me get my son around the world and make his world tour go through each country on the globe. Yossi Zur, Asaf's father Email: Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives
in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at www.naomiragen.com, where you
can subscribe to her newsletter.
|
|
GERSHON, WHERE'D YOU GET THIS FROM?
Posted by Israel Zwick, June 30, 2008. |
"Palestinians will work on preventing attacks against Israel as long as there is a negotiated peace process that still provides hope for an agreement. Palestinians will renew their struggle against Israel, including the armed struggle, when they perceive that the occupation will not end and the Palestinian state will not be established next to Israel." –– Gershon Baskin Where do you get this from? There is nothing in their words or deeds that suggests that this is true. What's wrong with the Palestinians demonstrating that they are capable of being peaceful, tolerant, cooperative neightbors. If they could do that, then they wouldn't need an inviable microstate in 6000 sq. km. They could live as a peaceful minority within the State of Israel. The world has 5000 minority ethnic groups living peacefully in 190 countries w/o a violent struggle for an independent state. Jews have been doing that for 2000 years. The 3 million Palestinian Arabs can live as a peaceful minority within Israel or they can go to 22 other countries and become part of the majority. Alternatively, they could form a commonwealth government federated to Israel. An independent Palestinian microstate would just lead to demands to form a binational state with Israel, and ultimately the demise of the Jewish state. Contact Israel Zwick by email at israel.zwick@earthlink.net and visit his website: www.cnpublications.net |
|
TAPED CONFESSIONS CLAIM GAZA PEACE DOUBLE-CROSSED BY ABBAS' FATAH ORGANIZATION
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 30, 2008. |
|
This was written by Aaron Klein and appeared yesterday in WorldNetDaily
Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily's Jerusalem bureau chief, is known for his regular interviews with Mideast terror leaders and his popular segments on America's top radio programs. His newly released book is "Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal their Global Plans –– to a Jew!" |
|
JAFFA, Israel –– A Hamas investigation replete with video confessions has discovered that militants from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah organization received instructions to disrupt a cease-fire that Israel agreed to last week with the Hamas terrorist organization in the Gaza Strip. WND last week exclusively quoted sources in Fatah's declared military wing, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist group, stating they received "understandings" from Abbas' office they are to fire rockets into Israel to sabotage the truce. U.S. and Israeli policy considers Abbas to be "moderate." Hamas has been abiding by the truce while Fatah's Brigades took responsibility for firing at least three rockets from Gaza last week. Now Hamas officials told WND yesterday an investigation concluded that Abbas' officials instructed the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades to launch rockets into Israel. The Hamas officials said they obtained videotaped confessions from Brigades members allegedly admitting to receiving attack instructions from Fatah. Hamas said it may release the videos on the group's Al Aqsa Television Network later this week. A senior source in Fatah's Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades told WND last week his group received "understandings" from Abbas' officials that Fatah wants to see the cease-fire "collapse." The senior Brigades source hinted a top Abbas official gave the Brigades specific instructions to launch Gaza-based attacks against Israel to precipitate an Israeli military response that would initiate a cycle of Hamas reprisal attacks that would, in turn, scuttle the cease-fire. The Brigades source refused to say which Abbas official may have given his group instructions, but WND understood from informed sources it was Tayir Abdul Al-Rahim, the secretary-general of Abbas' office, who communicated specific instructions to the Brigades to shoot rockets at Israeli population centers. This past Thursday, the Israel Defense Forces confirmed three Qassam rockets were launched from Gaza into southern Israel. The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades took responsibility for the attacks. This weekend, at least four mortars were fired from Gaza, according to the IDF. Earlier this week, WND quoted a top PA official complaining the truce between Hamas and Israel enhances the position of Hamas and amounts to the Jewish state's tacit recognition of the terrorist group's control of the Gaza Strip. Officially, the PA, headed by its president, Mahmoud Abbas, endorsed the Gaza truce agreement, which went into effect 11 days ago, hours after Hamas and other local Palestinian groups took responsibility for firing nearly 30 mortars and rockets from Gaza into nearby Jewish communities. But unofficially, the PA has been expressing to Israeli and American diplomats its strong opposition to the truce, explaining the cease-fire puts Hamas in a more powerful position. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "sold us out," said the top PA official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It is not possible that Israel agreed to the truce with Hamas without U.S. approval," he said. "Israel has now negotiated indirectly with Hamas and is doing business with them. Hamas is the dealmaker and power broker." The PA official's main complaint was not that Israel was negotiating with a terror group but that the Jewish state, he argued, was enhancing Hamas at the expense of the PA. The official said the PA took particular offense at talk of eventually expanding the truce to the West Bank, which until now has been considered the territory of Abbas' Fatah organization. He said if Hamas was seen as the main power broker in the West Bank, it would be a "disaster" for Fatah and the PA. The official described the mood at Abbas' headquarters following the truce as "one of mourning." "It's our Tisha B'Av," he said. Tisha B'Av is the Jewish fast day known as the "saddest day" in the Jewish calendar. It commemorates tragedies that befell the Jewish people, including the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the First and Second Jewish Temples. Hamas has controlled the Gaza Strip since last summer, when it expelled the U.S.-backed Fatah organization from the territory. The Gaza cease-fire officially went into effect last week. Israel has said it will hold off all military operations in Gaza in exchange for a complete cessation of Palestinian rocket attacks and violence. Hamas, for its part, reportedly instructed its members to refrain from carrying out any attacks. In spite of the attacks launched from the Gaza Strip, Israel yesterday eased its blockade of Gaza by reopening some border crossings and by allowing a larger number of shipments to enter and may open border crossings closed in recent months. Israeli security officials have warned in briefings to the Knesset that Hamas would use the truce to rearm itself and strengthen its forces against an ultimate Israeli military incursion into Gaza. The officials said more Israeli troops would likely die fighting in Gaza, because of the off-time Hamas is likely to use to prepare itself for battle. In a briefing to the Knesset earlier this month, Yuval Diskin, director of Israel's Shin Bet Security Services, identified a recent surge in terrorist activity and arms smuggling in the Gaza Strip. He also said Hamas stepped up the pace of training its gunmen and attempted several major attacks in recent days that were foiled by Israel. Cease-fire 'victory for resistance' Last week, WND quoted Gaza-based terrorist leaders calling the cease-fire a "victory" for Palestinian "resistance." The terrorist announced the truce will be used by local terrorist groups to re-arm and prepare for battle against the Jewish state. "We are humiliating the Israelis. They kept threatening to make a huge operation in Gaza, but they were the ones who begged us to go into the cease-fire," said Muhammad Abdel-Al, a leader and spokesman for the Hamas-allied, Gaza-based Popular Resistance Committees terror group. Along with Hamas, the Committees took responsibility for firing a massive onslaught of rockets and mortars just before the truce was agreed upon. "[The rocket attacks] prove we are not going into this cease-fire from a weak point but from a point of force and power," Abdel-Al said. Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' so-called military wing, told WND his group will use the truce to rearm itself. "The hudna (temporary truce) will be used for more training, arming. ... We don't have any intention to stop from bringing in weapons from the Sinai into Gaza," said Abdullah. He called the cease-fire "one more sign of the collapse of the Israeli army, that this big Israeli army with the so-called best air force in the world didn't succeed to stop the rockets, and they accepted the truce." The term "hudna," dates back to Islam's founding in the 7th century, when Muhammad declared a 10-year hudna with the tribe that controlled Mecca. Later, after re-arming, Muhammad attacked the tribe, claiming it had broken the truce. In 1994, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat invoked Muhammad's hudna when he justified the launch of the second intifada during the Oslo peace process. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy noted in 2003 that Hamas had agreed to 10 cease-fires in the previous decade and returned freshly armed after each one. "It is important to note," the institute said, "that all cease-fire offers have been presented at a time when Hamas needed a moment to step back and regroup after an organizationally exhausting confrontation with a more powerful foe (either Israel or the PA)." Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
ISRAELI MEDIA SHUN CONCLUSIONS; US PLAN PROMOTES TERRORISM IN P.A.
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 30, 2008. |
|
INDIANS ANTI-TERRORIST Terrorism has arisen among India's Muslims. Muslims and other religions there held a mass-conference in which they all denounced terrorism. It is wrong to attack civilians, they said, Islam is a religion of peace. IMRA wonders whether this denunciation is any more sincere than others by Muslims, who, when pressed, make an exception for what they call national liberation from Israel or the US(= Islamic domination). Their definitions were vague and no groups of terrorists and their causes were identified (IMRA, 6/1. I think that so general a statement is like S. Arabia's stance: train people to want holy war, but condemn them if they bring that war to S. Arabia. ANOTHER DOUBLE STANDARD Acting on his own, an Israeli aide to PM Rabin once advised Syria that Israel would relinquish the Golan Heights for a peace treaty. The PM did not give permission for that. Now Syria takes that as a solemn promise (IMRA, 6/14). Any statements made during Israeli bargaining but not in an agreement, any hints, the Muslim Arabs take as a commitment. Their own, actual signed commitments, however, they say mean something else or lapse because the Islamic decade has ended or the Muslim who signed it is out of office, or simply is disregarded. That is about as extreme a double standard as can be. Western media follow suit. They claim that what Israeli negotiators once offered becomes the base for new bargaining and it is up to Israel to close the gap. They don't claim that what Arab negotiators once offered becomes the base for new bargaining and it is up to the Arabs to close the gap. So unpatriotic are Israeli leaders, that they don't discourage expectations of concessions from them by stating that concessions thought of by predecessors have become even more untenable after years of Arab aggression. ISRAELI MEDIA DON'T OR WON'T REACH CONCLUSIONS An Israeli broadcaster reported an IDF officer's assessment that removing more checkpoints from Judea-Samaria would enable terrorists to bombard Israel. Later, the half-hour news summary mentioned that Sec. Rice was coming to demand that more checkpoints be removed. It did not refer to the IDF assessment of danger from such removal. Sec. Rice said that the removal of IDFcheckpoints around Jenin gave Arabs more access (IMRA, 6/15). But the P.A. did nothing to reduce terrorist access. PEACE WITH JORDAN? Jordan refused the Israeli delegation entry to the regional conference on economic development and tourism (IMRA, 6/15). That is a treaty violation. U.S. PLAN FAILING TO CURB TERRORISM IN P.A. The US persuaded Israel to allow the P.A. to run counter-terrorism efforts in several P.A. cities. Israel has been observing that the P.A. police impose order, but do not combat terrorism. Terrorists have infiltrated the P.A. police. Police weapons provided by the US have gotten into the hands of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The result is that in Ramallah and Jenin, terrorism has increased. IDF officials strongly condemn the program, closely monitored by US Gen. Dayton in Jenin (IMRA, 6/15). Will Israel have the moral courage to warn that the experiment is failing and if it doesn't improve in a few weeks, it would close it down? Would it dare to complain that the US, in its naivete (or is it malice) has gotten involved in promoting terrorism, and that all along that has been the import of US policy towards the P.A.? RICE & ABBAS PRESS CONFERENCE Sec. Rice said, "I should say that, of course, there are obligations on the Palestinian [Arab] side as well and we're going to work through those in the trilateral that we will hold tomorrow morning as well." Dr. Aaron Lerner notes her mentioning Arab obligations as an afterthought. Obviously she is not interested in P.A. compliance. The P.A. has never complied with its agreements. She also said that Israel would benefit from a democratic, peaceful neighbor, meaning statehood for the P.A. Dr. Lerner said that is not the point, since there is no chance of such a cultural revolution. The question is whether Israel could live with a belligerent state (IMRA, 6/15). My additional answer is that Israel would not benefit from a democratic, peaceful state carved from the cradle of Jewish civilization and depriving Israel of secure borders and much of its water supply. It isn't a proper role for the US to be demanding dangerous concessions by Israel and subsidizing a P.A. that continues advocating terrorism and bigotry. It undermines US goals in Iraq to subsidize Saddam's allies in the P.A.. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear regularly in 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 |
|
SALUTE THE DANISH FLAG –– IT'S A SYMBOL OF WESTERN FREEDOM
Posted by Paul Lademain, June 29, 2008. |
|
This is from Etgawal via La. La writes: Islam is not a religion. it is a social system regulating every aspect of human behavior according to the whims of whomsoever is 'imam' and his construction of his book of islam. Under islam, it's obey or die. No different from the Third Reich. This is from Susan MacAllen If you agree with this article, then please pass it on. |
|
In 1978-9 I was living and studying in Denmark. But in 1978, even in Copenhagen, one didn't see Muslim immigrants. The Danish population embraced visitors, celebrated the exotic, went out of its way to protect each of its citizens.. It was proud of its new brand of socialist liberalism one in development since the conservatives had lost power in 1929 –– a system where no worker had to struggle to survive, where one ultimately could count upon the state as in, perhaps, no other western nation at the time. The rest of Europe saw the Scandinavians as free-thinking, progressive and infinitely generous in their welfare policies. Denmark boasted low crime rates, devotion to the environment, a superior educational system and a history of humanitarianism. Denmark was also most generous in its immigration policies –– it offered the best welcome in Europe to the new immigrant:generous welfare payments from first arrival plus additional perks in transportation, housing and education. It was determined to set a world example for inclusiveness and multiculturalism. How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the streets –– all because its commitment to multiculturalism would come back to bite? By the 1990's the growing urban Muslim population was obvious –– and its unwillingness to integrate into Danish society was obvious. Years of immigrants had settled into Muslim-exclusive enclaves. As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they considered the decadence of Denmark's liberal way of life, the Danes –– once so welcoming –– began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam as incompatible with their long-standing values: belief in personal liberty and free speech, in equality for women, in tolerance for other ethnic groups, and a deep pride in Danish heritage and history. An article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they forecasted accurately that the growing immigrant problem in Denmark would explode. In the article they reported: 'Muslim immigrants constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending. Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.' Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane. Forced marriages –– promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death –– are one problem.' 'Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark's Muslim population grows large enough –– a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.' It is easy to understand why a growing number of Danes would feel that Muslim immigrants show little respect for Danish values and laws. An example is the phenomenon common to other European countries and Canada: some Muslims in Denmark who opted to leave the Muslim faith have been murdered in the name of Islam, while others hide in fear for their lives. Jews are also threatened and harassed openly by Muslim leaders in Denmark, a country where once Christian citizens worked to smuggle out nearly all of their 7,000 Jews by night to Sweden –– before the Nazis could invade. I think of my Danish friend Elsa –– who as a teenager had dreaded crossing the street to the bakery every morning under the eyes of occupying Nazi soldiers –– and I wonder what she would say today. In 2001, Denmark elected the most conservative government in some 70 years –– one that had some decidedly non-generous ideas about liberal unfettered immigration. Today Denmark has the strictest immigration policies in Europe. (Its effort to protect itself has been met with accusations of 'racism' by liberal media across Europe –– even as other governments struggle to right the social problems wrought by years of too-lax immigration.) If you wish to become Danish, you must attend three years of language classes. You must pass a test on Denmark's history, culture, and a Danish language test. You must live in Denmark for 7 years before applying for citizenship. You must demonstrate an intent to work, and have a job waiting. If you wish to bring a spouse into Denmark, you must both be over 24 years of age, and you won't find it so easy anymore to move your friends and family to Denmark with you. You will not be allowed to build a mosque in Copenhagen. Although your children have a choice of some 30 Arabic culture and language schools in Denmark, they will be strongly encouraged to assimilate to Danish society in ways that past immigrants weren't. In 2006, the Danish minister for employment, Claus Hjort Frederiksen, spoke publicly of the burden of Muslim immigrants on the Danish welfare system, and it was horrifying: the government's welfare committee had calculated that if immigration from Third World countries were blocked, 75 percent of the cuts needed to sustain the huge welfare system in coming decades would be unnecessary. In other words, the welfare system as it existed was being exploited by immigrants to the point of eventually bankrupting the government. 'We are simply forced to adopt a new policy on immigration.' The calculations of the welfare committee are terrifying and show how unsuccessful the integration of immigrants has been up to now,' he said. A large thorn in the side of Denmark's imams is the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj. She makes no bones about the new policy toward immigration, 'The number of foreigners coming to the country makes a difference,' Hvilshoj says, 'There is an inverse correlation between how many come here and how well we can receive the foreigners that come.' And on Muslim immigrants needing to demonstrate a willingness to blend in, 'In my view, Denmark should be a country with room for different cultures and religions. Some values, however, are more important than others. We refuse to question democracy, equal rights, and freedom of speech.' Hvilshoj has paid a price for her show of backbone. Perhaps to test her resolve, the leading radical imam in Denmark, Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, demanded that the government pay blood money to the family of a Muslim who was murdered in a suburb of Copenhagen, stating that the family's thirst for revenge could be thwarted for money. When Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that in Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country is not necessarily what is done in Denmark. The Muslim reply came soon after: her house was torched while she, her husband and children slept. All managed to escape unharmed, but she and her family were moved to a secret location and she and other ministers were assigned bodyguards for the first time –– in a country where such murderous violence was once so scarce. Her government has slid to the right, and her borders have tightened. Many believe that what happens in the next decade will determine whether Denmark survives as a bastion of good living, humane thinking and social responsibility, or whether it becomes a nation at civil war with supporters of Sharia law. And meanwhile, Canadians clamour for stricter immigration policies, and demand an end to state welfare programs that allow many immigrants to live on the public dole. As we in Canada look at the enclaves of Muslims amongst us, and see those who enter our shores too easily, dare live on our taxes, yet refuse to embrace our culture, respect our traditions, participate in our legal system, obey our laws, speak our language, appreciate our history... we would do well to look to Denmark, and say a prayer for her future and for our own. Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net |
Posted by Sacha Stawski, June 29, 2008.
This was written by Benjamin Weinthal
and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=
1214726153485&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Neither Black September, a Palestinian terrorist group with ties to Fatah, nor incompetence on the part of German authorities was responsible for the murder of 11 Israeli athletes during the Munich Olympic Games on September 5, 1972; rather, according to a German sports historian, the athletes sacrificed themselves voluntarily.
The Israeli Embassy in Berlin has demanded that German politicians take action against University of Göttingen professor Arnd Kruger, whose alleged anti-Semitic lecture has created a public row.
Der Spiegel's Web site reported Saturday that Kruger, director of the Institute for Sport Studies in Göttingen, Lower Saxony, had said the murdered Israeli athletes had prior knowledge of the planned massacre and consciously decided to stay at the Olympic village to sacrifice themselves for the Jewish state. Kruger supported his martyr theory by saying there is a "different perception of the human body" in Israel compared with other industrialized nations. He also said that "Israel is trying to prevent at all costs living with disabilities" and had a higher abortion rate than other Western countries.
At the Munich Olympics, terrorists associated with the Black September group killed two members of the Israeli team and took nine hostage. The group demanded that Israel release hundreds of Palestinians security prisoners in exchange for the hostages.
The Palestinian terrorists eventually murdered all of the athletes and coaches, and a German policeman. Lax security in the Olympic village and German police incompetence are typically cited as the main contributors to the deaths of the athletes.
Alex Feuerherdt, a journalist who has written extensively about anti-Semitism within the German soccer federation, told The Jerusalem Post, "First, a police psychologist assigned at the time claimed that the murder of the Israeli athletes was the fault of the Israeli operatives. Now a sports historian tells us that these athletes died as martyrs for Israel. These are nothing but anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. What absurd theory will come next? That the Palestinian terrorists in Munich in 1972 were actually Mossad agents?"
Kruger's statement prompted Ilan Mor, the chargé d'affaires at the Israeli Embassy in Berlin, to criticize the rise in anti-Semitism masquerading as criticism of Israel.
"This is the worst form of dehumanizing the state of Israel," Mor told Der Spiegel, referring to "a form of the new flared-up anti-Semitism in Germany, packaged as criticism of Israel."
Kruger declined to respond to a Post e-mail. Reached on his cellphone Sunday, he said he "cannot speak because he is driving" and asked to be telephoned in an hour. Multiple calls to his landline and cellphone were not returned.
Kruger issued a written statement to the university confirming his thesis, and insisted that he was not an anti-Semite.
Elke Wittich, a sports journalist for the on-line magazine Sports Wire.de and the weekly paper Jungle World, told the Post this was not the first time Kruger disseminated his theory about the cause of the massacre in 1972. She said that the academic had previously published an article in the college's magazine in Göttingen blaming the Israeli athletes for their own murders. The free college publication has a circulation of 12,500.
Despite his visual impairment, race-walker Shaul Ladany was able to escape the terrorist attack, and this served as evidence that the other athletes could have escaped, Kruger wrote in the magazine.
Wittich said several neo-Nazi forums were citing Kruger as a hero, and questioned why the University of Göttingen permitted Kruger to spread his bizarre anti-Jewish theories.
At an academic conference last week, Kruger equated the massacre by Arabs of Jews in 1929, who remained in Hebron during the pogrom, with the alleged failure of the Israeli athletes to vacate the Munich Olympic village.
German pundit, Henryk M. Broder responded to Kruger's theory in his "The Axis of Good" blog on Sunday: "It is not easy to convey to people who believe in progress that anti-Semitism has nothing to with education or lack of education –– that it occurs among members of the educated classes just as often (and sometimes even more often) than among the uneducated... In the 1930s, the Nazis claimed that Jews had declared war; academics like the former Nazi military psychologist Prof. Peter R. Hofstaetter were still arguing this in the 1970s and 1980s. Part of the anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist mantra today is the claim that the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis and accepted the death of Jews to achieve their goal, the creation of Israel," he wrote.
The University of Göttingen plans to review the results of a German Federation for the Science of Sports inquiry on Krüger.
Martin Krauss, a journalist who covers sports for the weekly German-Jewish newspaper Die Jüdische Allgeimeine Zeitung, told the Post that if Der Spiegel's report was accurate, Kruger ought to be dismissed.
Contact Sacha Stawski at sstawski@honestly-concerned.org
|
THE LEBANESE POWDER KEG
Posted by Olivier Guitta, June 29, 2008. |
|
After the Hezbollah (the Party of God) coup in May and its "official" endorsement by Lebanese political forces and the international community in Doha, Lebanon is still very much facing an explosive situation. Last week's heavy fighting between Sunni militants and Alawites ? an offshoot of Shiism ? (Syrian President Bashar Assad is an Alawite) in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli left at least nine dead and many more wounded. One may deduct from this latest violence that the Doha agreement that allowed the election of the pro-Syrian Gen. Michel Sleimane and de facto handed Hezbollah the keys of the country, is not going down well with the Sunnis, the Druze, a large portion of the Christian community and finally some anti-Hezbollah forces within the Shiite community. In fact, they feel that once again the United States and France have sold out Lebanon to fit their geopolitical interests. For instance, a majority politician expressed his resentment of the major world powers: "They wanted Munich! Today, Iran controls the country. Tehran has restored its "border" with Israel, that had been destroyed during the war of 2006. Bravo to the international community!" Blame is not limited to France and the U.S. but also to the majority's leadership and in particular the Future Movement, Saad Hariri's party. The Hariris know that they will pay dearly among their base their decision not to call to take up arms against the Shiites. Indeed, scores of Tripoli residents that long regarded the Party of God as the "resistance" of Lebanon, view it now as the party of the devil. Already, in Tripoli, the Salafist extremists, are gaining ground. A group of them told the French daily Libération: "Hariri is our leader, we respect and support him. Now, this is the nice option. If it fails, we have another option called Ben Laden." Interestingly, Omar Bakri, the extremist preacher and alleged al-Qaida's mouthpiece who was kicked out of England after the July 7, 2005 bombings, now residing in Tripoli, confirms this trend:" Today, angry Lebanese Sunnis ask me to organize their jihad against the Shiites. I did not believe in the emergence of al-Qaida in Lebanon. But they are the only ones who can defeat Hezbollah. After the Afghans, after the Europeans converted to radical Islam by Al Zawahiri, the next al-Qaida generation will be Lebanese." Hezbollah is obviously not sitting on its hands and is preparing its next move. As the Kuwaiti daily al-Seyassah reported last week, clashes occurred between farmers in the region of Jezzin (Christian region in the South, located at the southern tip of Mount Lebanon) and Hezbollah fighters. The farmers have been unable to exploit their land transformed by Hezbollah in a closed military zone. Since August 2006 and the ban for Hezbollah to cross the Litani river, the Party of God has built a new line of defense in the region of Jezzin, where it has stepped up purchases of land to achieve the junction between the south of the Bekaa, in the east and the Shiite regions to the west. But the farmers are far from happy about this and that is why fighting erupted. The incident, during which explosions and gunfire were heard, has allegedly resulted in four deaths. Hezbollah, which has imposed a full "black out," preventing journalists and the army access to the area, denies and refuses to explain the origin of the explosions. Confirming this worrisome Hezbollah activity in the south are sources close to NATO who stated that Hezbollah has two plans in the offing to neutralize the UNIFIL forces in case of a new conflict with Israel. The first one entails Hezbollah storming UNIFIL posts in a peaceful manner with large waves of civilians. The second is a full-out war in case of retaliation by UNIFIL. Hezbollah units have been recently training with anti-tank missiles to handle the Leclerc tanks of the UNIFIL forces. Nonetheless, Hezbollah thinks that in case of a war with Israel, UNIFIL would stay on the sidelines. UNIFIL is the not the only foreign force that Hezbollah could strike. Indeed, Hezbollah has been indirectly targeting the U.S. forces in Iraq. A senior Hezbollah official was recently arrested in Sadr City and dozens of Hezbollah operatives are allegedly training Shiite and Sunni radical groups in Iraq. This veiled war could explain why according to analyst Elizabeth Picard the U.S. administration recently asked Israel to hit hard at Hezbollah during the May crisis. Hezbollah could also decide to strike at U.S. interests in the U.S., Canada, South America, Africa or Europe. To add to the already potentially explosive cocktail, the well-informed Jane's revealed that Syrian troops are deployed in Lebanon. With so many players present in that small country, the likelihood of a new armed conflict is growing by the day. Lebanon could end up being the next stage of the war between the West and radical Islam. Olivier Guitta, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a foreign affairs and counterterrorism consultant, is the founder of the newsletter The Croissant (www.thecroissant.com). |
|
WHY PRETEND? READ THE HUDAIBIYA TREATY
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, June 29, 2008. |
|
Another reason for this deep and abiding hatred for non-Muslims is a backward society, locked in the time warp of the 7th Century by the Mullahs who condemn their people to jealousy and hatred for any people who trek forward and accomplish. Every country's Foreign Ministry with well-educated bureaucrats would know that making an agreement with Islamic-driven nation is like using disappearing ink. The leaders of Arab and/or Islamic countries make agreements with impunity, knowing they can and will break them at any time convenient or necessary to them. In fact, according to Islamic law, they must break said agreements made with ‘infidels' (non-Muslims) within 10 years...according to the Hudaibiya Treaty Mohammed made in the 7th Century with the richest of the Jewish tribes, the Banu Quraizah (allies of the Quraish Tribe). He made that treaty while he was militarily weak so he could worship at Mecca. But, in two years he returned with a strong army, broke the 10 year treaty, brutally murdered and decapitated all the men, captured and enslaved the women and children of the Banu Quraizah Tribe. (1) The very day Yassir Arafat signed the Oslo Accords he told his Arab audience in Arabic that the Oslo Accord was like the Hudaibiya Treaty. He would break it as soon as he was stronger. And, of course, he did –– as often as he could. He unleashed his PLO Terrorists to rise up in their various ‘intifadas' no matter how much the Jews foolishly offered them ancient Land G-d gave to the Jews in perpetuity. (2) So-called diplomats in America, Europe, Asia and Russia know that when a Muslim/Arab leader is displaced by age, assassination or overthrow by a religious sect, the next leader must disavow all prior "peace" agreements in order to justify their new order of rule. The diplomats know the Arabs pay lip service to keep prior agreements if it serves the "Jihad". For example, Bashar Assad, President of Syria replaced his father, Hafez al-Assad when he died. Assad's families and a small contingent of Alawite Muslim generals rule Syria with an iron hand and they easily control Bashar. The Alawites are roughly 10% of Syria's population with the Sunnis about 80%. When (not if) the Sunnis overthrow the Alawites and Bashar, there will be a "New Order" of conduct and all prior agreements will be declared null and void. That would include Ehud Olmert's transfer of the Golan Heights in a bid for a Gaza-like peace. The Alawite minority with long-term pre-planning will escape to the sea-side fortress city of Latakia which the Assad family and the Generals have fortified with the best armaments taken from Syrian Army stores. When the Sunnis control Syria and the Golan Heights, which Olmert-Livni-Barak –– encouraged by Condoleezza Rice –– wish to surrender to Syria, Israel will once again be under the guns, missiles and rockets of the radical Islamists. Any prior agreements which Israel has or will sign, will be null and void (following Mohammed's Hudaibiya Treaty). Be assured that the neither the U.S. State Department nor the European Union will object. As for the U.N., it votes and performs as if it's a radical Third World nation controlled by the Arab Oil Bloc. We have already seen how the Muslim Arabs behave when offered Jewish "Land for Peace" after the abandonment of Gush Katif/Gaza and 4 North Samarian communities in the name of peace. As forecast by this writer and many others, "Judenrein" (Jew-free) Gaza has morphed into a Global Terrorist firing base for Kassam rockets, mortars and Katyusha missiles. Oslo failed and Gaza was even worse as Israeli leaders showed their inability to conduct the affairs of the nation and keep their citizens safe. All the explosives, ammunition and high tech weaponry were sent by Iran and Syria, to be smuggled into Gaza with the assistance of President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. The nations, including the Bush-Rice regime, had detailed intelligence about it but didn't give a damn. Remember when Israel made a grand gesture for the Camp David Accords? Israel surrendered the entire Sinai Desert with the oil fields discovered and brought to production by the Israelis that could have kept Israel energy independent. This "gift" of infrastructure, military bases, cities and homes as well as the energy was valued at $17 Billion at the time –– probably many times that by today's inflated dollars. This was another failed gesture to appease the Arab Muslims. All Israel got in return was a piece of paper with all sorts of "peace" agreements and side letters but, the writing by the State Department, President Clinton and then President Anwar Sadat was in disappearing ink. None of the responsibilities stipulated for Egypt were kept –– except for the absence of a full scale assault until Egypt wishes to join Syrian, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Hamas, Hezb'Allah and the Muslim Arab Palestinians in their next war, their "Final Solution to their Jewish problem" of the State of Israel in the Muslim crescent of the Middle East. When Mubarak dies, retires or is assassinated, Egypt will likely come under the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood. All prior agreements made with Israel, with America as the guarantor, will disappear in an instant. The Muslim Brotherhood will control the vast Egyptian Army and the now (at least) $80 Billion of advanced armaments given (virtually free) to Egypt by America (who gave Egypt the money to pay for them) so Egypt could act as U.S. representative to occupy the Saudi oil fields as American care-takers. No doubt, Egypt, under the Muslim Brotherhood will occupy Saudi Arabia but, not on behalf of American interests. That has been the Arabist State Department's policy since the time Jimmy Carter effectively toppled the Shah of Iran and brought to power the then-exiled Ayatollah Khomeini. With the fall of Iran, America lost her Iranian "cop-on-the-block" the U.S. had used to protect the Gulf Oil States and the immense high tech American arms stockpile. America also lost their Phoenix missile system and the F14 Tomcat advanced fighter jet which were passed on to the Soviets. Ex-President Jimmy Carter (called the worst President in U.S. history) is still stumbling around the Middle East, causing as much trouble as he can. Perhaps you are starting to get the idea that trusting Muslim/Arab rulers to remain compliant and keep peace agreements is like squeezing Jell-O. Of course, if you are a Super Power like America, Russia or China, you can play that game of "pretended" agreements which you know won't be kept –– because history tells you so. But, if you are a minuscule country like Israel, squeezed between hostile Muslim nations pledged to "Jihad" (holy war for Islam), with hundreds of thousands of hostile "Palestinians" festering inside your country, you cannot abandon defensive territory as confidence building gestures to strengthen your enemies who vow to destroy you. The surrender of Land does, indeed, establish confidence but, it's the kind of confidence that assures the Muslim Arabs that Israeli leaders are weak and ready to accept and encourage defeat. Regrettably, Israel's present leaders meet the criteria of being weak, corrupt, crooked, incompetent –– except in maneuvers to keep their power –– even if Israel is forced to accept a re-partition at their hands. Recently, MK Aryeh Eldad, reading from Israel's established and mandatory laws, states clearly that any Israeli attempting to give away their G-d given Land is either to be imprisoned for life or executed. Either sentence would be satisfactory for the Olmert, Kadima, Labor, Shas government coalition. ### 1. "War on Jihad" www.aronjihad.org/islam200905.html 2. "ARAFAT OPTS FOR THE ‘HUDAIBIYAH' TREATY" by Emanuel A. Winston June 27, 2002 www.gamla.org.il/english/article/2002/june/win1.htm Here is a short list of articles we have written about the HUDAIBIYA TREATY: "WORDS ARE NOT BINDING" August 1998
P.S. [I definitely remember reading that Hosni Mubarak (Egyptian President since Sadat was assassinated) declared that the Camp David Peace Treaty was null and void after 10 years (like the Hudaibiya Treaty) –– but, no one noticed. However, I can't find the reference –– GW] 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@gwinston.interaccess.com |
|
POEM FOR ISRAEL: WHY NOT A JEWISH STATE?
Posted by Kaustav Chakrabarti, June 29, 2008. |
|
I dedicate this poem on the 60th Anniversary of the State of Israel. |
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: INSANITY PLUS
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 29, 2008. |
|
Comprehension of what is going –– or, rather, WHY it is going on –– eludes me, my friends. Announcement has been made of the Cabinet vote of 22-3 in favor of releasing Lebanese terrorist Samir Kuntar, Palestinian prisoners, and bodies of Hezbollah guerillas for the bodies of Israeli soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev –– who at this point are clearly thought to be dead. The ministers who voted against were Roni Bar-On (Finance), Ze'ev Boim (Housing) and Daniel Friedmann (Justice). For the details of the agreement, see:
~~~~~~~~~~ This vote came in spite of the advice of top security officials (the heads of Shin Bet and Mossad) that this was a bad move and would encourage further abductions. It even gives the message that it's OK to kill those Israelis who are abducted, and Israel will still trade. Olmert's statement on the matter before the vote was that "...I came to the conclusion that as the prime minister of Israel I should recommended approval of the resolution that will bring to an end this painful chapter, even at the painful price that it extracts from us." In the course of his statement, he indicated that release of Kuntar was probably the reason that Goldwasser and Regev were abducted in the first place. And we give them what they were seeking?? It must be noted that the families of Goldwasser and Regev have received a lot of publicity regarding their right to have their loved ones returned to them, and the pleading they've done to make sure the government would make this possible. Olmert and company undoubtedly hope to capitalize on popular sentiment in this regard. Amongst leaders and potential leaders here, it was only former Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon who raised the question of the price being too high. ~~~~~~~~~~ And Samir Kuntar? We held this Lebanese Druse –– who was a member of Palestinian Liberation Front –– in prison for years, but the death penalty would have been more appropriate (if we routinely levied a death penalty, which we don't). In 1979, he entered Nahariya, Israel from Lebanon, by boat, with a group of three fellow terrorists. Entering the apartment of the Haran family, and knowing the police were on the way, they took Danny Haran and his four year old daughter, Einat, hostage and brought them down to the beach. When a shoot-out with police erupted, Samir Kuntar shot Danny in the back at close range in full view of his four year old daughter. Then he drowned Danny in the sea to make certain he was dead, and proceeded to smash Einat's head against the rocks, while she screamed, "Mommy, Daddy help me!" Then he crushed her head with the butt of his rifle. This subhuman we release from prison? A great deal has been made of the feelings of the Goldwasser and Regev families, but what of the feelings of the Haran family? It should be noted, by the way, that Kuntar is a declared recidivist. He has already announced that he will return to terrorism. And this we release from prison. Wrong, shamefully, pathetically wrong. ~~~~~~~~~~ So the Kuntar family and other despicable beings in Lebanon are celebrating tonight. The Israeli government should collectively hang its head in shame. ~~~~~~~~~~ Meanwhile, Palestinian Media Watch reports that the PA, our alleged partner in peace negotiations, has made the claim that Kuntar represents "heroism." PA TV has broadcast a picture of Kuntar alongside a map of Israel completely covered with the Palestinian flag. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
SHARI'A (ISLAMIC LAW): NO INTEREST LOANS AND OTHER FALLACIES
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 29, 2008. |
|
Redacted from Editors at Family Security Matters |
|
There has been much talk about Shari'a compliant finance (SCF) in recent months, but many Americans are still in the dark about exactly what it is and what it portends for the American economy and the freedoms Americans enjoy. This may be why the judge in the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas last fall, declared a mistrial and five of six defendants face a retrial (one was found not guilty of most of the charges against him). Terror expert Douglas Farah surmised at the time that part of the reason might have been because "perhaps the prosecution tried to cram too much information in with a group of jurors largely unfamiliar with anything to do with the case." Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism had a heated exchange with Alan Colmes of Fox News about whether the mainstream news media had even managed to get the story right. SCF is a part of Shari'a law (also known as Islamic law), and dates back to the 9th Century. Shari'a law encompasses every facet of one's life, and those who seek to impose it upon Muslims –– and the world –– look to regulate everything from aspects of religious and social customs to political and military responsibilities. Shari'a law is, in fact, the law in countries like Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Iran. The Taliban also recognizes Shari'a law, and subjected all of Afghanistan to it before U.S. forces entered that country after 9/11. Earlier this year, Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury faced a firestorm after he suggested in a BBC interview that the adoption of Shari'a law in Britain "seems unavoidable. As a matter of fact, certain conditions of Sharia are already recognized in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system." While his seemingly willing acceptance of this might shock, UK Muslims on welfare are eligible to receive extra benefits if they have more than one wife –– even though polygamy is considered illegal under British law. In essence, the Archbishop was correct when he said "certain conditions" of said Shari'a law are already recognized in today's British society! Here is a partial listing of the effects of Shari'a law:
Under SCF provisions, profits must not benefit from anything considered haram (forbidden) in Islam such as gambling, alcohol, entertainment, pork products, etc. As such, Western financial institutions wishing to obtain some of the billions of petrodollars from the Middle East are offering services that meet these requirements. Still, not all profits will meet these stringent constraints and so to "cleanse" or "purify" them, they are donated to Islamic charities. Charity sounds well and good until you stop to think that some of these charities could support Islamic Jihad. In fact, the three largest Shari'a-compliant charities in the United States were closed down by the government for funding terrorist organizations: the aforementioned Holy Land Foundation, the Benevolence International Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation. How many Americans would approve of SCF if they knew its full implications? Deroy Murdock makes an apt comparison: Turn your clock back 70 years. Imagine that Wall Street banks and brokerage houses sold Nuremberg-compliant bonds and stock funds in 1938. American Nazi sympathizers bought financial instruments certified by Berlin-based advisors as free of "Jewish profits" from, say, Salomon Brothers and Bloomingdale's. In turn, a percentage of such funds' gains underwrote pro-Nazi charities, like the German-American Bund, and similar organizations in the Fatherland, like the Hitler Youth. By investing in SCF schemes, Western financial institutions not only give Shari'a law credence but also ultimately aid Islamists in their attempt to use our own financial system against us. As it is, the West is subject to the ups and downs in the Middle Eastern oil industry. Could SCF be the next sub-prime crisis in the making? Think about it: the more money that is invested in the Middle East, the greater ability for the Middle East to pipe the tune the West dances to. Make no mistake. So-called "Sharia-compliant financing" is neither about religion nor about God. It is about Islamist control and collectivization of Muslims against "the West" and free markets. Transnational Islamist movements of Muslim theocrats seek SCF systems as nothing more than a ruse. Islamist theocrats exploit Western deference to religious freedom in order to lay the foundations of economic systems which feign religion in order to strangulate the economic freedoms of Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il |
|
PRISONER EXCHANGE IN JEWISH LAW
Posted by Hadar, June 29, 2008. |
|
Professor Paul Eidelberg is President of the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy. He is an internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. Contact him by email at Constitution@usa.net |
|
It has been reported that Hamas is demanding 1,000 terrorists now in Israeli jails in exchange for IDF soldier Gilad Schalit, who has been held hostage for two years in Gaza. Hence, let's consider an article by Rabbi Eliezer Melamed's on the subject of prisoner exchange in Jewish law, but only insofar as it refers to the imprisonment of Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg in the thirteenth century. "Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg (1215-1293 c.e.), known as the Maharam, was one of the greatest of the early Jewish codifiers. At the age of seventy he was taken captive and placed in a prison in France. Emperor Rudolf I proceeded to demand an exorbitant sum for his release. "To understand the full significance of this act it is important to realize that almost all of the rabbis and leaders of the Jewish communities in that generation were the Maharam's students...Even the great rabbis of the generation that followed were greatly influenced by the teachings of the Maharam. The most famous of his students was Rabbi Asher ben Yechiel, known as the Rosh, whose rulings are cited extensively in Rabbi Yosef Karo's Shulchan Arukh.Rabbi Melamed goes on to say: "Although … there are opinions that when the captive's life is at stake it is permissible to pay even more than the generally accepted amount, in wartime it is forbidden to give in to any such extortion whatsoever. The rule is that in times of war one does not submit to any of the enemies' demands. In fact, even in a case when the enemy only stole some straw and hey from a border village, the response must be a strong military one. For, as soon as one gives in to them regarding a small matter, they will gain confidence and increase their efforts to strike at us (see Eruvin 45a). HaDaR can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net. |
|
FIRST WORLD NOAHIDE CONFERENCE BEGINS
Posted by Hillel Fendel, June 29, 2008. |
|
(IsraelNN.com) The 1st World Conference of the Noahide Nations is underway in Florida. The conference is taking place at the Ft. Lauderdale Airport Hilton Hotel, and is designed to bring Jews and Noahides together. The organizers stated that for this purpose, the location was specifically chosen for its proximity to a large Jewish populace.
The conference speakers include IsraelNationalRadio (INR) director Yishai Fleisher, speaking on "INR Support for the Future of the Noahide Movement," and show host Rabbis Chaim Richman, and other rabbinic scholars. The four-day event features workshops and symposiums led by Jewish and Noahide scholars in the fields of Torah study, science, history and government. Conference organizer Ray Pettersen, of the Dallas-based Noahide Nations, said, "Our world is plagued with violence and diminishing human dignity. Yet, we are also blessed with an unprecedented outpouring of Torah knowledge that is both timeless and even technological. That knowledge, coupled with a heightened sense of the need for community is the underlying theme of this summer's conference." On display at the conference is what the conference organizers call the "Golden Crown of the High Priest of the Third Temple." The crown is actually a headplate known as the Tzitz, fashioned out of pure gold by the Temple Institute in the Old City of Jerusalem and completed last December. The Temple Institute stated at the time that the Tzitz "is ready to be worn by the High Priest in the rebuilt Holy Temple in Jerusalem." The words "Holy for G-d" are engraved on the headplate, in accordance with Exodus 28:36. Last month, Rabbi Yaakov Cohen, Sheikh Abdaal Salaam and Reverend Michael Kroop addressed a Hebrew University audience on the topic of how the Seven Noahide Laws can help bring world peace. Rabbi Cohen, of The Institute of Noahide Code, who organized the conference, said the goal was to "use the Noahide laws as a starting point for dialogue between representatives of different traditions." The seven Noahide laws, by which Gentiles are bound according to Torah law and which are being accepted by increasing numbers of non-Jews, are the following: 1. Belief in one G-d; no idol worship At the Florida conference, Pettersen presented Oscar-winning actor Jon Voight with the Zedekah Award for his charitable efforts and public support for the State of Israel, and Vendyl Jones received the Noah Award for his lifetime of work in spreading Torah and the Seven Laws of Noach. Other speakers include Rabbis Y. Hollander, Joel Bakst, and Michael Katz, as well as Dr. Andrew Goldfinger, Judge Rabbi Sander Goldberg, Jim Long, and more. Hillel Fendel is senior news editor at Arutz-Sheva. |
|
IRAN READY TO STRIKE AT ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR HEART
Posted by Michael Travis, June 29, 2008. |
|
This was written by Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv and is from The
Sunday Times, Times Online
|
|
Iran has moved ballistic missiles into launch positions, with Israel's Dimona nuclear plant among the possible targets, defence sources said last week. The movement of Shahab-3B missiles, which have an estimated range of more than 1,250 miles, followed a large-scale exercise earlier this month in which the Israeli air force flew en masse over the Mediterranean in an apparent rehearsal for a threatened attack on Iran's nuclear installations. Israel believes Iran's nuclear programme is aimed at acquiring nuclear weapons. The sources said Iran was preparing to retaliate for any onslaught by firing missiles at Dimona, where Israel's own nuclear weapons are believed to be made. Major-General Mohammad Jafari, the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, told a Tehran daily: "This country [Israel] is completely within the range of the Islamic Republic's missiles. Our missile power and capability are such that the Zionist regime –– despite all its abilities –– cannot confront it." An editorial in a government newspaper, Jomhouri Eslami, said: "Our response will hit right at their temple." The sabre-rattling coincided with a visit to Israel yesterday by the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, for talks with his Israeli opposite number, Lieutenant-General Gabi Ashkenazi. This intensified speculation that Israel was seeking US approval for a possible attack on Iran. "Although the visit had been planned well in advance, we got the feeling he was coming to make sure we'll obey the strict timetable agreed with the US," said an Israeli defence source. He refused to elaborate. President George Bush has approved the linking of Israel to a US infrared satellite detection system that could spot Shahab missile launches within seconds. This should enable the Israeli air force to destroy such missiles in the booster stage. The system will also give the Israelis about 15 minutes to seek shelter before any warhead hits. Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com |
|
LIBERAL MEDIA NO NOTHINGS BASH ISRAEL
Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, June 28, 2008. |
|
Occasionally, it is useful to hear what opponents of Israel say, especially if such opponents are self-flagellating pro-Palestinian Jews, believing Israel can do nothing right, and those Arabs who despise Israel are indeed victims of the Jewish oppressor. Of course, I would not recommend doing this right after a meal unless a bucket is within easy reach. The other day I bravely tuned in the liberal public radio station out of New York City, WBAI, whose views on Israel are so bizarrely skewed against the Jewish State even Al Jazeera Israel-bashers might blush. Mimi Rosenberg, 'Israel Apartheid' junkie and hostess with the leastest when it comes to Israel, indeed demonstrating her incredibly meager grasp of the beleaguered democratic nation's history, indeed demonstrating that her show 'Building Bridges' goes one way straight to Hamas headquarters, interviewed one so-called professor, a kindred spirit self-flagellating Jew (the name escapes me at the moment, but it doesn't matter) who even discussed Hamas' anti-Semitic charter, yet still blamed Israel for abusing Palestinians that in fact elected Hamas to govern Israeli abandoned Gaza, suggested the Jewish State had no right to put the squeeze on denizens of that strip of land still allowing their Arab brethren to fire missiles at Israel, and on and on ad nauseam until unexpectedly asserting one opinion making the whole time spent seething over his inflammatory vacuous lecture worthwhile. He, in effect, stated Barack Obama's perspective was no better than John McCain's when it comes to Israel. Wow! When someone of that ilk so puts down a politician, he has in fact enhanced the good name of that politician immeasurably. If Obama' s perspective on Israel disgusts self-flagellating Jews, he could very well be a true friend of Israel. At the least we might say Obama has one good reference. It is good for Israel that both U.S. presidential candidates are viewed with disdain by those with liberal pro-Palestinian viewpoints, but one must further wonder why those with such a bent, indeed prone to champion today's collective underdog, are loathe to also view Israel as an underdog. Could they be upset at the Jewish state's presumed affiliation with a hawkish U.S. White House, or more likely could their knee jerk brains blow several circuits when confronted with the fact that against all odds Israel has crafted herself into a huge Middle East success story? Might they shudder at the notion that although many Israeli Arabs castigate the nation that feeds them, indeed provides them with many more freedoms and opportunities than would neighborhood Muslim regimes; such ingrates knowing where their pita is buttered rarely if ever opt to leave. Take note of such inconvenient truths WBAI employees as well as kindred spirit producers and talk show hosts! Ask yourselves why those facts are not emphasized, as well as the fact that tormented Israel must fight to stay alive every minute of the day; then ask yourselves how under those circumstances she still maintains a first world economy boasting a disproportionate number of Nobel prize winners to boot! Is it improper to be successful, Mimi? Do you lose your status as an underdog and become a pariah when you transcend the odds and succeed, or are we witnessing plain old fashion anti-Semitism at work, and in your case a creepy Jewish anti-Semitism that makes any thinking Jew want to retch!?! Does the concept suicide bomber thus the need for walls and check points ever override your self-hating instincts Mimi? Do you ever muse over the plight of Sderot citizens who never know when a Hamas launched missile might snuff out the life of a precious Jewish child? Have you not contemplated Hamas' despicable current charter, its raison d'etre, including the following excerpt? The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim). Are you upset that your would-be darling Obama has enough sense not to buy into your distorted views concerning Israel, understanding her trials and tribulations, seeing the terrorist Hamas organization for what it is? WBAI and similar media outlets fight the good rhetorical fight for many worthy causes, including the ongoing genocide against Black Africans in Darfur Sudan perpetrated by Janjaweed terrorists at the behest of a sadistic Arab government in Khartoum, including ongoing horrific violent crimes occurring against citizens of other third world regimes, including the exploitation of labor worldwide, including the overall economic abuse and selective persecution of hapless folks in local neighborhoods and afar, yet unconscionably drop the ball when it comes to Israel. Could it be that Israel's public image is so tainted, exacerbated by misguided Jews who refuse to comprehend Israel's geographic plight, exacerbated by misguided Jews obsessed with the misleading concept of occupation when it comes to Judea and Samaria, exacerbated by misguided Jews who refuse to recognize the folly of abandoning Gaza, exacerbated by misguided Jews who in general just don't get it when it comes to their homeland, unfair treatment by folks in the media who should be Israel's allies becomes inevitable? Shows like 'Wake-up call', another forum on WBAI, should every once in a while support the beleaguered Jewish state, but unless such misguided Jews themselves wake up, including talk show hosts like Ms. Rosenberg, that possibility will remain lower than the possibility that fundamentalist jihadists will lay down their arms and respect the right of Israel to even exist. Perhaps a 'disappointing' Obama or Bush 'clone' McCain, from the skewed perspective of liberally foolish folks in the media, will help reverse Israel's public relations failures brought about in part by self-hating Jews. Let us be audacious and hope so! 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 |
|
HOW THE BRAIN WORKS
Posted by Paul Lademain, June 28, 2008. |
|
This article is called "Your Brain Lies to You"
and was written by Sam Wang and Sandra Aamodt.
It appeared yesterday in the New York Times
Sam Wang, an associate professor of molecular biology and neuroscience at Princeton, and Sandra Aamodt, a former editor in chief of Nature Neuroscience, are the authors of "Welcome to Your Brain: Why You Lose Your Car Keys but Never Forget How to Drive and Other Puzzles of Everyday Life." To everyone who publishes pro-Israel messages: This article, in the NY Times, presents research about the brain and how it stores lies. It reinforces what we have been telling Israeli supporters over the past three years. The article, below, will give you much-needed insight as to why the Arabs have successfully sold their lies to the public and why Israel fails when they attempt to rebut them. The Arabs apparently understand how the brain lies. So study this article. Unfortunately, far too often Hebrew and Jewish scholars do not understand the psychology underpinning successful propaganda and thus they inadvertently reinforce Arab/Islamic lies when they attempt to rebut them. This article offers advice to Obama which is the same advice we have been giving you over the past three years –– that is, the more you ring your enemy's bell, the more the brain remembers the lie your enemy is telling about you. Here is an excerpt from the article: "Journalists and campaign workers may think they are acting to counter misinformation by pointing out that it is not true. But by repeating a false rumor, they may inadvertently make it stronger. In its concerted effort to "stop the smears," the Obama campaign may want to keep this in mind. Rather than emphasize that Mr. Obama is not a Muslim, for instance, it may be more effective to stress that he embraced Christianity as a young man." How to go about this? Do not preface your message with a scholarly ten-page regurgitation of the Arab imperialist's lies and then conclude with a dry, unimpassioned defense of Israel. Begin your propaganda with a strongly stated declaration in favor of Israel, even exaggerate –– after all, this is propaganda, and you want to win. Repeatedly emphasize your enemy's bloody flaws. Their disgusting practices. Their unquenchable greed. And don't let the enemy interrupt you. Talk over their voices. When you find a successful chord, play it again and again. And this advice holds true for rebutting Israel's enemies within –– that is, the self-loathing, self-soiling Jews who declare their eagerness to "make painful concessions" to the enemy. When you defeat an enemy, you must bring them to their knees. And then keep their land to remind them that they are the defeated aggressors. This is how France became France and, most importantly, how the new state of Saudi Arabia originated: the Islamic terrorist Abdul Aziz butchered village after village and seized the major portions of the Arabian peninsula, then gave his family name to the territories he conquered when Saudi Arabia was coalesced, in 1932, into the backward, tyrannical, undeservedly monied, state it is today. When Iran brays about demolishing Israel, immediately state in rebuttal that Iran will never recover the territory they will lose if they dare declare war against Israel. Do not begin your rebuttal with an "even-handed" ten page scholarly, analysis of Ahmenejad's "thinking." Viva to the Patriots of Israel from the NON-evangelical Christians for Zion. |
|
FALSE beliefs are everywhere. Eighteen percent of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth, one poll has found. Thus it seems slightly less egregious that, according to another poll, 10 percent of us think that Senator Barack Obama, a Christian, is instead a Muslim. The Obama campaign has created a Web site to dispel misinformation. But this effort may be more difficult than it seems, thanks to the quirky way in which our brains store memories –– and mislead us along the way. The brain does not simply gather and stockpile information as a computer's hard drive does. Facts are stored first in the hippocampus, a structure deep in the brain about the size and shape of a fat man's curled pinkie finger. But the information does not rest there. Every time we recall it, our brain writes it down again, and during this re-storage, it is also reprocessed. In time, the fact is gradually transferred to the cerebral cortex and is separated from the context in which it was originally learned. For example, you know that the capital of California is Sacramento, but you probably don't remember how you learned it. This phenomenon, known as source amnesia, can also lead people to forget whether a statement is true. Even when a lie is presented with a disclaimer, people often later remember it as true. With time, this misremembering only gets worse. A false statement from a noncredible source that is at first not believed can gain credibility during the months it takes to reprocess memories from short-term hippocampal storage to longer-term cortical storage. As the source is forgotten, the message and its implications gain strength. This could explain why, during the 2004 presidential campaign, it took some weeks for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Senator John Kerry to have an effect on his standing in the polls. Even if they do not understand the neuroscience behind source amnesia, campaign strategists can exploit it to spread misinformation. They know that if their message is initially memorable, its impression will persist long after it is debunked. In repeating a falsehood, someone may back it up with an opening line like "I think I read somewhere" or even with a reference to a specific source. In one study, a group of Stanford students was exposed repeatedly to an unsubstantiated claim taken from a Web site that Coca-Cola is an effective paint thinner. Students who read the statement five times were nearly one-third more likely than those who read it only twice to attribute it to Consumer Reports (rather than The National Enquirer, their other choice), giving it a gloss of credibility. Adding to this innate tendency to mold information we recall is the way our brains fit facts into established mental frameworks. We tend to remember news that accords with our worldview, and discount statements that contradict it. In another Stanford study, 48 students, half of whom said they favored capital punishment and half of whom said they opposed it, were presented with two pieces of evidence, one supporting and one contradicting the claim that capital punishment deters crime. Both groups were more convinced by the evidence that supported their initial position. Psychologists have suggested that legends propagate by striking an emotional chord. In the same way, ideas can spread by emotional selection, rather than by their factual merits, encouraging the persistence of falsehoods about Coke –– or about a presidential candidate. Journalists and campaign workers may think they are acting to counter misinformation by pointing out that it is not true. But by repeating a false rumor, they may inadvertently make it stronger. In its concerted effort to "stop the smears," the Obama campaign may want to keep this in mind. Rather than emphasize that Mr. Obama is not a Muslim, for instance, it may be more effective to stress that he embraced Christianity as a young man. Consumers of news, for their part, are prone to selectively accept and remember statements that reinforce beliefs they already hold. In a replication of the study of students' impressions of evidence about the death penalty, researchers found that even when subjects were given a specific instruction to be objective, they were still inclined to reject evidence that disagreed with their beliefs. In the same study, however, when subjects were asked to imagine their reaction if the evidence had pointed to the opposite conclusion, they were more open-minded to information that contradicted their beliefs. Apparently, it pays for consumers of controversial news to take a moment and consider that the opposite interpretation may be true. In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the Supreme Court wrote that "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market." Holmes erroneously assumed that ideas are more likely to spread if they are honest. Our brains do not naturally obey this admirable dictum, but by better understanding the mechanisms of memory perhaps we can move closer to Holmes's ideal. Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net |
|
NOT A PERSONAL AFFAIR
Posted by Truth Provider, June 28, 2008. |
|
"That Israel will pay a price in blood if the deals go through is a certainty. That more Israelis will meet the fates of Schalit, Regev and Goldwasser is a certainty. The only thing we do not know today is the names of the victims. They could be any one of us. Indeed, they are all of us. For all of us are equally targeted simply by virtue of the fact that we are Israelis." –– Caroline Glick Dear friends, For once, I am on the side of the Israeli government, as long as its debate and decision on the painful subject is done in the context of what is good for Israel, rather than what is good for the ministers' personal politics. The subject is the imminent release of hundreds of "Palestinian" murderers in an exchange for three abducted Israeli soldiers of which two are presumed dead. After you read the latest masterpiece article on the subject by
Caroline Glick (see below), I would be interested in your opinions.
It appeared June 26, 2008 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. This debate in Israel has a direct association with the debate in the USA over the fate of terrorist detainees, caught red-handed (with blood on their hands). After all, we (Israel, the US and all other civilized nations) are involved in the same war, shoulder to shoulder. |
|
On Sunday Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will bring the matter of IDF reserve soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser before his cabinet. The two reservists, who are presumed dead, have not been heard from since they were kidnapped to Lebanon by Hizbullah on July 12, 2006. Olmert will instruct his ministers to vote on whether Israel should release Samir Kuntar and three Hizbullah terrorists from its prisons to secure the return of their bodies. On April 21, 1979, Kuntar and four other terrorists infiltrated Israel from Lebanon. Kuntar entered the Nahariya apartment belonging to Danny and Smadar Haran and their daughters, two-year-old Yael and Einat, a four-month-old baby. Kuntar forced Danny and Einat to the beach below. There he shot Danny in the head and then drowned him in the sea. He crushed Einat's skull on a rock with his rifle butt. Smadar evaded capture by hiding in a crawlspace of their apartment with Yael. While trying to keep Yael silent, Smadar inadvertently suffocated her. Kuntar has pledged that if released, he will join Hizbullah and continue his quest to bring about the destruction of Israel. He has no regrets. As the government ministers vote to release Kuntar and his associates in exchange for Goldwasser and Regev's bodies, Ofer Dekel, Olmert's point man for hostage negotiations, will be sitting in Cairo. There he is negotiating the price of releasing IDF soldier Gilad Schalit, who for two years has been held hostage by Hamas and its fellow terror groups in Gaza. Unlike Regev and Goldwasser, Schalit is presumed alive. His captors have forced him to send messages to his parents demanding that Israel release Palestinian terrorists in exchange for his freedom. According to the Egyptian media, Hamas is demanding 1,000 terrorists now in Israeli jails in exchange for Schalit. Most of them are convicted murderers. For its part, the government has expressed its willingness to release murderers for Schalit. But it is still unclear how many. Among the many killers whose release Hamas demands are the masterminds of the Seder massacre at the Park Hotel in Netanya where 30 people were murdered on March 27, 2002. According to the Arab media, most of the masterminds of suicide bombings in recent years are on Hamas's list. It is impossible to know precisely how many Israelis will be killed in the future if the deals now on the table are approved. But past experience shows that at a minimum, dozens of Israelis now innocently going about their business will be murdered by the terrorists Israel releases. And at a minimum, one or two Israelis will be abducted by Hamas or Hizbullah or one of their sister terror organizations. They will be abducted in Israel or while they are travelling abroad and they will be brought to Lebanon or Gaza and the cycle of blood extortion and psychological warfare will begin anew. That Israel will pay a price in blood if the deals go through is a certainty. That more Israelis will meet the fates of Schalit, Regev and Goldwasser is a certainty. The only thing we do not know today is the names of the victims. They could be any one of us. Indeed, they are all of us. For all of us are equally targeted simply by virtue of the fact that we are Israelis. Given these certainties, it is obvious that the deals now on the table ought to be rejected completely. And yet, they will both almost certainly be approved. The fact that this is the case is yet another damning indictment of Israel's elected leaders and its media. In equal parts, they share the blame for the fact that Israel is about to accede to Faustian bargains that will bring untold suffering to the country. TO DATE, the only clear public call to reject these deals was made by former IDF chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. (res.) Moshe Ya'alon. At a conference on military leadership Tuesday, Ya'alon argued against the deals explaining, "In some situations, the price to pay as part of the deal is much heavier than the price of losing the captive soldier." Ya'alon's statement should have been a springboard for a reasoned debate. But the local media would have none of it. Rather than enable a responsible debate, the media called on Schalit's father, Noam Schalit, to rebut Ya'alon. Noam Schalit brutally and unfairly denounced Ya'alon as a political operative. In his words, "No politician or political operative has the right to determine the fate of an IDF POW, except a commander during battle. Ya'alon was an army commander, but today he is mainly a politician and a political operative. He and anyone else can determine a POW's fate only if it concerns their own son." Piling on, Goldwasser's father, Shlomo Goldwasser, said, "Such words can only be spoken by a man whose son is not held captive by the enemy. He would have spoken differently had the matter been a personal concern of his." The brutal truth is that the hostages' fathers have things precisely backwards. With all due respect, it is they that should not be listened to. Through no fault of their own, the Regev, Goldwasser and Schalit families have become the mouthpieces of Hizbullah and Hamas. This is as natural as it is tragic. The moment their sons were abducted, the Schalit, Regev and Goldwasser families also became prisoners. In constant agony over the fate of their sons, these families are incapable of acknowledging the cruel and devastating fact that the safety of three soldiers cannot be placed above Israel's national security. In their unmitigated suffering, they cannot come to terms with this horrible fact because for them the country, and indeed the world, is made up of their loved ones. This is the natural human condition. Each person's world is defined by the presence and absence of his loved ones. For the Goldwassers, Regevs and Schalits, Israel is a meaningless, cold, dark place when it doesn't include their sons Ehud, Eldad and Gilad. And it is precisely for this reason that they cannot be allowed to dictate policy. It is precisely for this reason that the only ones who can responsibly weigh Israel's options for releasing them are those who are not personally affected by their plight.
IN 2005, then-prime minister Ariel Sharon had his ministers vote on a proposed deal in which Israel would release hundreds of terrorists in exchange for the bodies of IDF soldiers Benny Avraham, Omar Suweid and Adi Avitan, and for Elhanan Tenenbaum, an Israeli drug dealer held hostage by Hizbullah. Among the few ministers who voted against the deal was former Prisoner of Zion Natan Sharansky. Sharansky recalls that Sharon called him the evening before the vote in an effort to secure his support. "He told me, 'As a former prisoner, you above all should understand our moral responsibility to bring about their release.'" Sharansky responded that, indeed, "As a prisoner, it is important to know that your country is doing everything it can to secure your release. But it is also true that you are not willing to be released at any price. There are things that are more important than your personal survival." It is a stinging indictment of Israel's political and media culture that the debate about these life-threatening deals has been dominated by the impassioned and tragic pleas of the hostages' families. As Sharansky notes, if as Messieurs Schalit and Goldwasser argue, issues of paramount national security are to be determined by the parents of soldiers, then no government can ever commit forces to battle. It is an abdication of national responsibility for Olmert to send the Goldwasser, Regev and Schalit families to his colleagues to beg them to vote in favor of these blood deals. And it is an abdication of responsibility by the media when they provide these terrified, victimized families with an open microphone to rail against our politicians for refusing to have mercy on them. Due to Hizbullah's and Hamas's deliberate, evil designs, the Goldwasser, Schalit and Regev families find themselves set apart from the rest of their countrymen. And since their personal suffering is easier to understand than the general suffering of the public if the murderers go free, it is difficult, but not impossible to understand what is at stake. Again, that the price is not clear is the fault of the media and the pandering politicians. Disgracefully, both have left the Israeli people as a whole unrepresented in this debate.
AND THIS is not a unique situation. In recent years, led by the hydra of its media and self-interested politicians, the Israeli public has had next to no representation in the public square. This came across clearly in the politicians' handling and the media's coverage of the other major story of the week. That story of course was the backroom deal forged Tuesday night between the Labor Party and Kadima that torpedoed the opposition's plan to hold a preliminary vote Wednesday to dissolve the Knesset and move to general elections in November. The deal, in which Kadima committed itself to holding a primary for its leadership post in September, guaranteed the Kadima-Labor-Shas government another nine months in power. Olmert, Labor Chairman Ehud Barak and their surrogates have defended the deal by arguing that what Israel needs most now is political stability. The only one harmed by their decision, they proclaimed, is Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu. The media parroted their arguments, scoffing at Likud politicians for "sewing their ministerial suits too early." As with the hostages-for-terrorists deals, by personalizing the issue at hand, both the politicians and the media ignored the public. The reason that "stability" can only be assured by preventing elections is that for the past two years, public opinion polls have consistently shown that the public wants to replace the Kadima-Labor-Shas government with a Likud-led government. It is not the personal ambitions of Likud politicians that were scuttled on Tuesday night. It was the public's will. It may seem crass to conflate issues affecting Israel's national security with issues affecting the identity of Israel's national leadership. It can be argued that they are unrelated. But the fact of the matter is that in both cases, no one is representing the public interest. In their rush to treat general issues as personal stories, whether of victimized families or of ambitious politicians, both our media and our leaders behave as if there are no general consequences for their actions. Personal stories are always powerful. Whether they are tragic, titillating or irritating, they never fail to attract our attention. But their attraction must not dwarf matters of national concern. Looking ahead, Israel's troubles will not end until our leaders and our media finally accept that Israel's collective fate is not the personal affair of any one of us. Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
PEDOPHILIA IN ISLAM, ALLOWED BY ALLAH AND PATRONIZED BY PROPHET
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 28, 2008. |
|
Having sex with underage children is popular in sharia countries. This is from Islam Review
|
|
ALLAH APPROVES OF IT 65.4 "If you divorce your (child) wife before she reaches menstruation age her idda is three months". According to this aya a muslim man can marry (and have sex with) even a one day old infant girl. ISLAMIC AUTHORITIES PROMOTE IT There is no argument on this point among Islamic authorities whether shia or sunni. they all agree that a muslim man can have sex with baby girl. This is what Imam Khomeini, the top shia authority says: "A muslim man can have sexual pleasure with a little girl as young as a baby. But he should not penetrate her vaginally, however he can sodomize her". (Tehriro vasyleh, fourth edition, Qom, Iran, 1990) Here is what the the top sunni authority says (on a Saudi website)
about having sex with a one day old baby girl.
PROPHET LOVED LITTLE GIRLS Prophet had special feelings for cute little baby girls. **Ibn Ishaq: Suhayli, 2.79: In the riwaya of Yunus Ibn Ishaq recorded that the apostle saw Ummu'l-Fadl hen she was baby crawling before him and said, 'If she grows up and I am still alive I will marry her.' (p. 311) ** Muhammad saw Um Habiba the daughter of Abbas while she was fatim (age of nursing) and he said, "If she grows up while I am still alive, I will marry her." (Musnad Ahmad, Number 25636) BABY AISHA Our prophet fell in love with Aisha when she was shown by Allah to him in his dreams when she still an infant. Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 15: Narrated 'Aisha: Allah's Apostle said (to me), "You have been shown to me twice in (my) dreams. A man was carrying you in a silken cloth(as an infant) and said to me, 'This is your wife.' I uncovered it; and behold, it was you. I said to myself, 'If this dream is from Allah, He will cause it to come true.' " COURTSHIP WITH AISHA Whenever Prophet visited Abu Bakr house he made Aisha sit in his lap and played with her..
PROPOSAL FOR MARRIAGE When Ayesha reached the age of 6 Prophet decided to marry her. He asked her father for her hand. Abu Bakr: Rasulullah you must be joking. She is hardly six years old. And you are in your fiftees. Prophet: She is old enough for me. Abu Bakr: Didn't you marry off your own daughters when they were much older.?. Prophet:That was before aya 65.4 was revealed. Now a muslim can marry even a day old infant girl. Abu: "But Rasulullah you called me your brother, how can you marry your foster niece". Prophet:" But you are not my real brother you are only a " brother in Islam"."* *Muslim Book 62, Number 18: Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry." Abu: "But Rasulullah, last week you turned down Hamza's daughter (who was ugly and in her teens) You said you cannot marry your foster niece**. ** Bukharihari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 37: Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: It was said to the Prophet, "Won't you marry the daughter of Hamza?" He said, "She is my foster niece (brother's daughter). " Prophet: " Allah had shown Ayesha to me in my dreams, that was Allah's indication for me to marry her, I am helples in this matter". ABU BAKR THROWS IN A MONKEY WRENCH Abu was concerned about the welfare of her tiny tot sleeping with a horny old man who was given the libido of 30 men by Allah. Abu: " I will let you marry her only on one condition, you will have to abstain from having sexual intercourse with the little one before she turns 9". Prophet was disappointed but he had no choice. Prophet: "O.K. but I will not abstain from using other halal methods of pleasuring ". AYESHA MADE A BEAUTIFUL BRIDE PROPHETIC PLEASURING THIGHING Sahih Dawood Book 1, Number 0270: Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: One night prophet entered upon me and said: Uncover your thighs. I, therefore, uncovered both of my thighs. Then he put his cheek and chest on my thighs. FONDLING Bukhari,Volume 1, Book 6, Number 299: 'Aisha said: "Whenever Allah's Apostle wanted to fondle me, he used to order me to put on an Izar and start fondling.. DAYDREAMING Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 660: Narrated Aisha: "Allah's Apostle used to think that he had sexual intercourse while he actually had not" BOTTOM LINE Bukhari,Book 002, Number 0572: Ayesha said " Whenever I found dried semen on the garments of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), I scraped it off with my nails. AISHA TURNS NINE Allah was very happy for the prophet when finally Ayesha turned nine.. He sent Gibraeel to congratulate him and to witness the consummation. Prophet introduced Allah's envoy to Ayesha. **Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 57, Number 112: Allah's Apostle said (to me), 'O Aish ('Aisha)! This is Gabriel greeting you.' I said, 'Peace and Allah's Mercy and Blessings be on him, you see what I don't see' " She was addressing Allah 's Apostle.(only prophets can see angels) MENTION OF HOLY CONSUMMATION IN HADITHS Sunan Abu Dawood Vol3 Bk36 N0 4917 Then they brought me to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and he had sexual intercourse with me. I was nine years old. Sunan Nasai Bk of Marriage, No 3256 A'ishah said: The Apostle of Allah peace be upon him married me when I was six and had sexual intercourse with me when I was nine and I was playing with dolls. ALLAH BLESSED THEM WITH INSPIRATIONS Although Prophet slept with hundreds of slave girls captured women and concubines in addition to his large number of wedded wives, Allah only sent quranic revelations to prophet when he slept with Aisha. Tabari Vl7, page :7 Ayesha said "Inspiration came to him when he and I were in a single blanket". Bukhari Vol 5 Bk57 N 119 Prophet said, By Allah, the Divine Inspiration never came to me while I was under the blanket of any woman except Aisha." A PEDOPHILE CONVERTS TO ISLAM When a pedophile found out that sex with children is halal and Sunna he converted to islam and changed his name to Mohammed. Here is the news from England. Paedophile changes name and converts to Islam in jail Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
HOW MANY LIVES DID IT COST BECAUSE ISRAEL HASN'T A DEATH PENALTY?
Posted by Sergio HaDaR Tezza, June 28, 2008. |
|
How many lives did it cost not to have applied the existing death penalty –– it never was for terrorists except for Eichmann –– for human beasts like Samir Kuntar, who in 1979, coming from Lebanon on a dingy, murdered entire families in Naharya, then had his fun murdering a father in front of his four year old daughter, so that her daddy's death were the last thing seen by the baby before her own head was smashed against a rock by the same speaking biped, as he himself proudly declared?? The life of Leon Klinghoffer, zt"l, the murdered paraplegic, then thrown into the ocean to the fish by Abu Abbas' terrorists under Arafat's command, during the highjacking of the ship Achille Lauro in 1985, was just one of the many lost lives because of the immoral choice to leave predators like Kuntar alive: the liberation of Kuntar was the request of the terrorists who highjacked the Achille Lauro. Many have been the people successfully kidnapped by Hizbollah and many the attempted kidnappings with dead soldiers, to exchange them with predators like Kuntar, comfortably held in an Israeli jail with free Red Cross and press visits, contrary to what happens to our people kidnapped by the muslim bipeds: our kidnapped soldiers disappear into nothing, in total isolation, and often they are given back piece by piece or just vanish. NOTHING OF ALL THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF BLOOD THIRTY PREDATORS AND ASSASSINS LIKE KUNTAR WERE EXECUTED JUST AS THE LAW SAYS THEY SHOULD, WHILE ISRAEL DOESN'T DO IT FOR POLITICAL REASONS THAT SHOW AN INCREDIBLY HIGH LEVEL OF IMMORAL CALLOUSNESS TOWARDS THE PAST AND FUTURE VICTIMS. THERE IS NOTHING MORAL IN KEEPING ALIVE MURDEROUS ENEMIES WHO ASSASSINATED WOMEN AND CHILDREN: NOT ONLY BECAUSE WE RISK OUR SOLDIERS' LIVES TO CAPTURE TERRORSIST WHO THEN ARE LIBERATED, BUT ALSO BECAUSE, ONCE LIBERATED, THE TERRORISTS GO BACK TO MURDER, AS IT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED IN MANY, MANY CASES IN THE RECENT PAST THAT IMMORAL LEADERS WOULD LIKE US TO FORGET. Contact Sergio at nutella59@gmail.com |
|
EXPLOSIVES SNIFFING POLICE DOGS OFFEND MUSLIMS
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 28, 2008. |
|
This was posted by Freedom Fighter on the JoshuaPundit website
|
|
Not only that, but their complaints are being taken seriously!
Apparently there have been numerous complaints by Muslims over the use of sniffer dogs to detect explosives by British police in areas like airports and subway terminals because Muslim culture considers dogs to be unclean animals. There are even verses in some of the Hadiths calling for the killing of all dogs as a holy act unto Allah, and in case you didn't realize, this was what was behind Muslim cabbies here in America refusing to pick up blind people with seeing eye dogs. Apparently Muslims also have a problem with electronic body scanning machines as well. Considering that none of these measures were in widespread use before some of their co-religionists decided to start blowing up the rest of us, it seems to me that the least Muslims in the West could do would be to go along with the program and be inconvenienced like the rest of us....or return to places where the cultural norms are more to their liking. According to a British Transport Police spokesman, they will still continue to use the dogs for now, but will instruct their personnel to be more 'culturally sensitive' and are considering only having the dogs sniff luggage rather than potential passengers. Of course, most homicide bombers place the explosives on their persons, so sniffing luggage is not exactly going to get the job done, is it? Amazing.
Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com
|
|
ISRAEL LOST ITS FIGHTING SPIRIT?; HAMAS' CONTRADICTORY WEBSITES;
REASSESSING BUSH
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 27, 2008. |
|
MASADA FRUIT BACK TO LIFE At Masada, some date seeds were found. They were about 2,000 years old. They probably had been in fruit stored by the defenders against Roman siege. One of the seeds has sprouted into a four-foot tree. If female, it may bear fruit in a few years. It is the oldest seed to have germinated (Arutz-7, 6/13). WILL ISRAEL INVADE GAZA? For two years, the government of Israel has threatened often to invade Gaza, to stop its barrage of Israeli cities. It keeps finding different excuses for not invading, some excuses being contradictory. They appear to be merely excuses, not reasons. The Israeli media takes the threats seriously (because it assists the government, but the Arabs no longer take the threats seriously). Israelis suspect that politicians are afraid that the public would lose patience with it for its invasion force taking many months to clear out the terrorists. This is a government that puts off difficult decisions more than most governments. The politicians are thinking now of coming elections and how they would appear in light of an invasion (sorry, lost source.) HAMAS' CONTRADICTORY WEBSITES Hamas has news websites in Arabic and in English. The one in Arabic reported that its men were preparing explosives to use against Israelis, but they blew up prematurely, destroying the house and killing some of its men and family, all martyrs. The one in English reported that "Zionist" airplanes blew up a house of women and children (IMRA, 6/13). It is the Muslims who deliberately attack civilians. Why the contradictory messages? The one in Arabic seems to admit the uncomfortable truth, that they jeopardize their own civilians and, for religious reasons, call them heroes. The one in English seems designed to produce anti-Israel propaganda and sympathy, as if the Muslim Arabs care about civilians, their own or enemy ones, though they don't. DEPUTY MIN. OF DEFENSE VILNAI He told the Israeli communities bombarded from Gaza to have more of a fighting spirit and stop complaining (IMRA, 6/13). What the civilians want is that the Army fight. It is Vilnai's government that lacks a fighting spirit! REASSESSING PRES. BUSH I cannot forgive Pres. Bush nor most of our modern Presidents for their efforts to appease the Arabs by rendering Israel defenseless, or is it to render Israel defenseless and incidentally appease the Arabs? Some of those Presidents pretend to be friends of Israel. It's taking a long time for our society to acknowledge the enmity of Arab oil suppliers and that terrorists who are anti-Israel also are anti-US, and that that includes Abbas and Fatah. Neither do I condone Pres. Bush's efforts against most environmental protection. Pres. Clinton was supposed to be an environmentalist, but he waited until the last months of his eight-year reign to propose major fuel-saving measures, such that the incoming Pres. Bush was able to overturn them. I am reassessing Pres. Bush. Like many friends, I was suspicious of his raft of measures favoring business and the rich. We thought it was just class warfare. My friends still do. Perhaps it is they who are engaged in class warfare, for the Democrats would punish business for prospering. Bush's reforms worked. Other countries that emulate them, prosper. Countries that have lowered taxes and reduced onerous government regulations found their economies growing much faster, as did America's. There would have been more reforms, but the Democrats and liberal critics beat Bush down instead of helping reform. No matter how fast our economy grew and reduced unemployment, they carped. Bush was not a forceful leader who knew how to explain his ideas persistently. As time goes on, more of Bush's program turns out to have been sounder than his critics. He opposed the Kyoto treaty as unfair to the US and unfeasible. For that he is much criticized. Now it turns out that China emits more greenhouse gases than does the US, but Kyoto did not require much of China. Compliance would bankrupt us, and for dubious advantage. Bush was right. I think that the Democrats acted in a partisan way, blocking appointments to the point of sabotage, and not trying to understand Bush's proposed reforms. Making reform that has been put off is like trying to lose weight. The longer the task is put off, the longer and more trying it becomes. Reform is difficult in a democracy, where protest is allowed and people promote their interests at the expense of the nation's. People demand subsidy until the forces that produce them can't keep up and the country loses business and debt becomes onerous. In Germany, people complained about the reforms, disregarded the benefits they produced, and got the government to backtrack. I'm not rich. This year I suffered from high taxes that the Democrats refused to lower. In a couple of years, the Democrats intend to let his tax reductions lapse, sothat they can spend much more on programs that probably won't work and which would reduce the competitiveness of American business. The Democrats don't realize that in a global economy, and one in which the US does not dominate; we cannot prosper unless we are competitive. Recently, private American freight railroads were freed of excessive government regulation. They prospered and became cheaper than fuel-guzzling trucking. Nevertheless, Congress proposes regulating them, again, which would hobble their initiative. The Democrats propose regulating much else, besides. As if the government knows better. In recent years, the federal government, acting politically correct rather than economically, intimidated mortgage lenders to lend to unstable house-purchasers. That exacerbated the problem. In addition, lenders leveraged poor mortgages on their own, but Sen. Obama refers to "the failed economic policies of Pres. Bush." They were Sen. Obama's failed policies as much as anyone's, because Congress bears responsibility for policy. In any case, Obama does not specify which ones failed. His audience just wants to hate Bush, so they don't feel a need to sort out the issues, separating what works from what doesn't. Obama does cite the war as a cause of public debt, but not Congress' excessive spending by both parties. Obama considers the war unnecessary to start and to win. He doesn't understand that we have to fight back against the totalitarian aggressors of our time, and that once started, pulling out precipitously would give those aggressors a rallying point and victory, and that if we hadn't entered the war, a responsible President and Congress would have been obliged to spend large sums building up our forces so they could handle the new threats. That build-up still is due. I have no confidence that Obama would keep us as relatively safe as did Bush. HAMAS RULE IN GAZA Hamas enforces a strict Muslim code in Gaza. It brooks no opposition nor even independent, non-political gatherings. The people don't mind being completely controlled. They see their future as separate from Abbas' less austere P.A.. Hamas easily seized Gaza after having provided services the corrupt Fatah regime failed to. Hamas rules efficiently, but the Israeli blockade keeps the people poor. Well, Gaza always was poor. The blockade lets through truckloads of goods, but the people suffer from it cruelly. Much else comes in through tunnels from Egypt. Hamas taxes a $5,000 tunnel shipment $3,000. The local government cannot afford to treat sewage; fish are more contaminated. Hamas is offering Israel a truce (Ethan Bronner, NY Times, 6/15, A1). Abbas' part of the P.A., is not under blockade, but also does not properly treat sewage. When Egypt ran Gaza, it forbad local employment except as terrorists. When Israel liberated Gaza, it built much infrastructure, revived the water supply that the Arabs ruined on their own, and raised the standard of living significantly. Considering the high taxes for making war, the unmentioned Hamas theft of fuel and other goods Israel lets through, and the discouragement to business investment in a place dedicated to war and arbitrary dictatorship, no wonder the people suffer and are poor! The blockade is a reaction to Hamas' war. That war is cruel to innocent Israelis, but the article discusses only hardship to the civilians, who approve of their dictatorship. I don't think that a people favoring terrorist war on peace-seeking Israel, deserves sympathy as much as their Israeli victims. Why does the US insist that the two, divisive parts of the P.A. be contiguous? WHEN ARE CARTOONS UNFAIR? This Sunday NY Times had two cartoons about the campaign, both, as usual, favoring Obama. In one, McCain waffled. In the other, Fox News reported that Obama sometimes doesn't war a flag pin, does terrorist fist jabs, is a closet Muslim, and is rumored to have fathered two black children (6/15). McCain deserves the criticism. Obama, who zig-zags constantly, deserves much more criticism. It would be farer to at least show both of them waffling. Fox's criticism is silly. That's an easy target. Serious criticism would be that Obama originally was a well-regarded Muslim, but now lies that he wasn't. Is he lying because he always does? Then he is an apostate subject to assassination. Or is he still sympathetic to Islam and the most un-American and stupid candidate since Carter? Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear regularly in 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 |
|
GOOGLE EARTH –– PROPAGANDA AND REPLACEMENT GEOGRAPHY
Posted by Bryna Berch, June 29, 2008. |
|
I appreciate Google's usefulness and innovative ways to help us access information. I think its search engine is indispensable. But I don't appreciate arbitrary inclusions/exclusions. Google has refused to remove the Jew Watch blog, a vicious frontrunner in the "I hate Jews" race. You might bleep back at me: free speech, free speech. O.K, so why is Google shutting down anti-Obama sites that it made available? According to today's Atlas Shrugs, the NoObama or NOBAMA bloggers that have been locked out of their own blogsites include: Blue Lyon @ http://bluelyon.blogspot.com So nu, what happened to free and unfettered speech? What is even worse, Google is beginning to contaminate its own information presentations. Google Earth is fascinating. Kids and grownups enjoy it so much they don't even realize they are swigging a dollop of geographic information while they play. But read the article below. More of this kind of partisan politics, we won't be able to trust google. What a shame. This was written by Andre Oboler and it was published as a Jerusalem Issue Brief (Vol. 8, No. 5, 26 June 2008) by Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). Contact JCPA at http://www.jcpa.org Dr. Andre Oboler is a social media expert. He holds a Ph.D. in computer science from Lancaster University, UK, and is a Post-Doctoral Fellow in Political Science at Bar-Ilan University in Israel. He is currently a Legacy Heritage Fellow at NGO Monitor in Jerusalem, and edits ZionismOnTheWeb.org –– a website countering on-line hate. |
|
ABSTRACT
Google Earth With a user base of 400 million,[1] Google Earth uses satellite imagery combined with maps, terrain, and 3D buildings to present the earth at various levels of magnification. Key features (geography, place details, pictures, etc.) are included with the download of Google Earth in what is known as a "core layer." Users can also download "custom layers" created by other users, which provide educational, historical, or special interest information to be accessed by those wishing to take the Google Earth experience further. The Google Earth website was the 8th most searched for website in the UK at the start of 2006.[2] The user base in June 2007 was 200 million,[3] up 100 percent from reports10 months earlier.[4] The application has broad appeal, with almost a quarter of the visitors to Google Earth over the age of 55.[5] Google Earth has been used by campaign groups to raise public awareness; examples include grass roots environmental campaigns that created a layer with information against deforestation; a WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) layer showing large-scale environmental and socioeconomic shifts; and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum which created a layer with information on the crisis in Darfur. These projects were custom layers which users could add to Google Earth.[6] Virtual Reality Virtual Israel, as represented by Google Earth, is littered with dozens of orange dots. Orange dots represent contributions from the user community, and those appearing by default have been accepted into the core layout by Google Earth. In the case of Israel, most of these dots claim to represent "one of the Palestinian localities evacuated and destroyed after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war." For example, Ramat Aviv, the site of Tel Aviv University, appears as Al Shaykh Muwannis. While generally Google Earth does not erase Israeli towns and kibbutzim, it has heavily integrated a politically motivated Palestinian narrative into the map of Israel. As a result, Israel is depicted as a state born out of colonial conquest rather than the return of a people from exile. Each orange dot links to the "Palestine Remembered" site, where custom layers which further advance this narrative can be obtained. Early press reports portrayed the virtual Palestine initiative as documentation of fact and included Israeli comments that it was "biased but legitimate."[7] Later research showed that many of the claims staked out in Google Earth were presenting misinformation. Kiryat Yam was wrongly claimed to be built on the Palestinian village of Ghawarina. Many sites known to be ruins in 1946 are claimed to be villages destroyed in 1948. Arab villages which still exist today are listed as sites of destruction.[8] The Google Earth initiative is not only creating a virtual Palestine, it is creating a falsification of history. Google Earth's core information also includes other problems. Previously, areas beyond the "green line" were labeled as "Occupied Territories," a phraseology which is sometimes used to justify terrorism, rather than "disputed territories."[9] The area listed as "occupied" also included the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.[10] Google Earth places Mt. Scopus and its Hebrew University campus in Jerusalem within Jordanian territory prior to 1967, even though it was an area where Israel exercised control during that period, according to the 1949 Armistice Agreement. In March 2008 the Gaza Strip was still listed as "Israeli-occupied," despite Israel's full withdrawal in 2005 and the military takeover of the Strip by Hamas in mid-2007. By May 2008 (after press coverage), the label was changed to read "Gaza Strip." A note states: "Many sources still regard the Gaza Strip as 'Israeli-occupied' despite formal Israeli withdrawal in September 2005."[11] There is still no mention of Hamas' control. Politically-Loaded Geography "Replacement geography" builds on the concept of "replacement theology," a position that spurred anti-Semitism within the church and which, starting with Vatican II, has been removed from Christian doctrine. Indeed, it has been stated that recognition of the State of Israel by the Vatican completed this process.[12] Replacement theology stated that Christians had inherited the covenant and replaced the Jews as the chosen people. The concept of replacement geography similarly replaces the historical connection of one people to the land with a connection between another people and the land. This was famously applied by the Romans when they renamed Judea to Palaestinia, and Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina in 135 CE in an effort to destroy the Jewish people after the Bar Kokhba revolt. In more recent times, replacement geography has resulted in the destruction of Jewish artifacts at the Temple Mount.[13] The inclusion of virtual Palestine, superimposed on Israel in the core layer of Google Earth, is an example of replacement geography advanced by technology. Those wishing to find directions, explore the cities of Israel, or randomly wander across this small piece of land are immediately taken to a politically motivated narrative unrelated to their quest. This is the sort of replacement the ancient Romans tried and failed to achieve. The promotion of a replacement narrative works against a compromise solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, inspiring absolutist positions rather than a negotiated settlement. Main Implications Generally, Google allows all kinds of organizations or individuals to create overlays with their own information on its map. These overlays are only available to those who specifically request them, but they are not automatically incorporated into the core map of Google Earth that every user entering its website can see. Disturbingly, Google has incorporated the Palestinians' overlays and their accompanying narrative into its core maps of Israel. As Google maintains editorial control over its core layer, it has responsibility for its content, which it clearly has not adequately exercised. Google Earth presents a tremendous challenge by allowing historical revisionism. Maps of the world have changed with evolving historical circumstances everywhere. Yet theoretically, with this tool, organizations seeking to make a claim for Mexican sovereignty over territories incorporated into the U.S. in the nineteenth century could raise such arguments by revising the map of Texas or California. Rather than serving as an educational resource, Google Earth could simply evolve into a website for political warfare. For those who do not physically visit Israel, the "facts" on this virtual ground are real. It is to be expected that people will form their opinion on issues such as borders, land rights, and historic connection based on sources like Google Earth. The social propagation of a narrative of Israeli aggression and ethnic cleansing –– an aspect of "Anti-Semitism 2.0"[14] –– is spread through Google Earth. Without a response that includes new information about the historical connection of the Jewish people to Israel throughout the ages, as well as modern Israeli history and the Israel of today, the world's opinion of Israel can only grow dimmer. An increase in content –– assuming Google will eventually add it to the core layer, something that is far from certain –– would address the vast imbalance, yet do little for the user experience. A far better solution would be for Google to remove the narrative and treat Israel as it treats every other country on the globe. Both the Palestinian narrative and promotion of Israel can have their place, but this should be in optional layers. The core layer of Google Earth should be ideology free and not serve as a platform for indoctrination or a campaign to wipe Israel off the virtual map.
Notes 1. Mike Swain, "Amazon Tribe Using Google Earth to Battle Illegal Loggers," Daily Mirror, 21 June 2008,
2. Quentin Reade, "Google Earth's Popularity Booms," Web User Magazine, 25 January 2006, http://www.webuser.co.uk/news/news.php?id=73488 3. Stefanie Olsen, "Do-Gooders Doing Google Earth," CNET News.com, 7 June 2007, http://www.news.com/2100-1038_3-6189464.html 4. David Meyer, "Google, Microsoft Vie for Earth Domination,"
CNET News.com, 12 September 2006,
5. Quentin Reade, "Google Earth's Popularity Booms," Web User Magazine, 25 January 2006, www.webuser.co.uk/news/news.php?id=73488. 6. Stefanie Olsen, op. cit. 7. Gal Mor, "Palestinian Villages Commemorated on Google Maps," Ynet News, 13 July 2006. 8. David Shamah, "Digital World: Google Earth's 'False Flags'," Jerusalem Post, 4 March 2008. 9. Dore Gold, "From 'Occupied Territories' to 'Disputed Territories'," Jerusalem Viewpoints, No. 470, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 16 January 2002. 10. "Google's Latest Anti-Jewish Outrage," WorldNetDaily, 11 March 2008. http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58658 11. See in Google Earth, 22 June 2008. 12. Padraic O'Hare, The Enduring Covenant: The Education of Christians and the End of Antisemitism, (Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1997). 13. Mark Ami-El, "The Destruction of the Temple Mount
Antiquities," Jerusalem Viewpoints, No. 483, Jerusalem Center for
Public Affairs, 1 August 2002,
14. Andre Oboler, "Online Antisemitism 2.0. 'Social Antisemitism' on the 'Social Web'," Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, No. 67, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 1 April 2008. |
|
RE-STARTING THE JEWISH HEART
Posted by Avodah, June 25, 2008. |
|
This was written by Gershom Gale for yesterday's
Jerusalem Post |
|
The Sanhedrin is the name of the 71-member Jewish court that was alone empowered to rule on such nation-affecting matters as who is or is not a prophet, pass final judgments on capital cases and issue rulings that would affect the religious practice of all the world's Jews. The first Sanhedrin was formed shortly after the giving of the Torah, when God told Moses to "assemble 70 of Israel's elders... the ones you know to be the people's elders and leaders.... I will cause some of the spirit that you possess to emanate, and I will grant it to them. You will then not have to bear the responsibility all alone" (Numbers 11:16). The Lord then "caused the spirit that had been imparted on Moses to emanate, and He bestowed it upon the 70 elders. When the spirit descended on them, they gained the gift of prophecy and did not lose it." These 70, with Moses, comprised the first court. The nation was then commanded to obey all (majority) Sanhedrin rulings, on pain of death: "If you are unable to reach a decision in a case involving capital punishment... where there is a dispute in your territorial courts, then you must set out and go up to the place that God your Lord shall choose. You must approach the Levitical priests, and the supreme court that exists at the time. When you make the inquiry, they will declare to you a legal decision... you must do as they tell you, carefully following their every decision. You must keep the Torah as they interpret it for you, and follow the laws that they legislate for you. Do not stray to the right or left from the word that they declare to you. If there is any man who rebels and refuses to listen to the priest or other judge who is in charge of serving God your Lord there, then that man must be put to death" (Deut. 16:8, Deut. 17). Its mention in Chronicles, Josephus and of course the Talmud proves that this institution was fully functional at least until 70 CE, when the Second Temple was destroyed. Some of the later Sanhedrin members are said to have had divine inspiration, such as the prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. To become members of the Sanhedrin, initiates had not only to scale the pinnacle of a nationwide educational system, but experience ordination by a laying-on of hands. Some believe that until at least one genuine bearer of the tradition comes forward to anoint the 70 other would-be Sanhedrin members, a modern body cannot be said to have divine approval. That "Judaism's Supreme Court" will in fact reconvene, however, is implicit in God's promise that "I will restore your judges as at the first" (Isaiah 1:26). Of course, even with that authority, Sanhedrin members are merely mortal, and are nowhere described as infallible. The Torah and Talmud thus provided several legal (i.e. God-approved) means of redress in the event of Sanhedrin error. In Jerusalem recently interviewed Rabbi Yeshayahu Hollander, a member of the nascent Sanhedrin responsible for relations with the gentile world and reestablishing the other functions performed by the Sanhedrin. His answers were then vetted and affirmed by Rabbi Yoel Shwartz, head of the beit din (rabbinical court) of Bnei Noah and a teacher at the Dvar Yerushalayim Yeshiva, and Rabbi Yehiel Sitzman, who is active in helping guide gentiles who wish to follow the laws which Judaism teaches they are obligated to observe. Of course, interacting with the gentile world was only one of the Sanhedrin's functions; the larger purpose of "Judaism's Supreme Court" was to act as a unifying influence on the Jewish world. For example, a functioning Sanhedrin issuing authoritative rulings (something which can't happen until the court is situated on The Temple Mount and its rulings earn the approval of a majority of world Jewry) could end Judaism's current division into Reconstructionist, Reform, Conservative, Orthodox and haredi streams, update such things as the halachic position on electricity, Internet, organ transplants and bioengineering, and unify Shabbat observance and standards of conversion. There have been earlier, unsuccessful attempts to revive the Sanhedrin. What makes this attempt different? This is the first attempt to reestablish the Sanhedrin in the Land of Israel at a time when the people of Israel represent the majority of the inhabitants... Today Israel is the center of Jewish life. Thus it has now become a duty for the Jews in the Holy Land to try to establish a Sanhedrin. But even this "new" Sanhedrin did not at first see itself as official. Is this still the case? Yes. To be "official" the basic requirement from a practical standpoint is that the top level of talmidei hachamim [Talmud scholars] either be part of the Sanhedrin or recognize it. Is a certain level of ruah hakodesh (divine inspiration) in at least one member necessary, as in the times of the original Sanhedrin? Maimonides does not list ruah hakodesh as a definite prerequisite. What relationship is envisioned between the Sanhedrin and the gentile world in general? With the Bnei Noah in particular? It is our duty to strive to bring the Torah to all the nations. This is indicated in many places... The nations are already coming to learn, as we see by the developing Bnei Noah movement –– those wonderful non-Jews who have taken upon themselves to observe the Seven Noahide Laws [sometimes called "The Noahide Covenant" or more figuratively "The Rainbow Covenant"]. Many Bnei Noah also take on additional commandments. There is a thirst for the word of the almighty, and it is our duty to meet this need. This Word was especially given at Sinai to Israel, whose role is to be "a kingdom of kohanim [priests] and a holy nation" [Exodus 19:6] which means, among other duties, that it is the duty of the Jews to teach the nations, just as it is one of the duties of the kohanim to teach the Jews, as Malachi says: "For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts" [Malachi 2:7]. Bnei Noah join the Jews in observing Psalm 105:1: "O give thanks unto the Lord, call upon His name; make known His doings among the peoples." Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com |
|
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRISONER EXCHANGE
Posted by Zalmi, June 26, 2008. |
|
This comes from Zalmi's website and is archived at
|
|
REVISITING BAT YE'OR
Posted by Steve Kramer, June 26, 2008. |
|
Who's Bat Ye'or and why should you care about her? Bat Ye'or (a pseudonym of Gisele Littman), born in Egypt and educated in Switzerland, currently lives in France and writes primarily about the history and status of non-Muslims in the Middle East. She is very significant because of her definitive work on the concept of "Eurabia". She is also an authority on dhimmitude, the institution of inferiority, humiliation, and obedience which Muslims impose on unbelievers by military or political force. Bat Ye'or admits her writings are "a gloomy look at the future of Europe". We recently heard her speak in Tel Aviv at an event marking the translation of her seminal work "Eurabia –– the Euro-Arab Axis" into Hebrew. Ye'or doesn't come off as an intellectual. She's very matter-of-fact in her statements, which are frequently based on pronouncements from the EAD (Euro-Arab Dialogue). The EAD was originally set up by the European Community, precursor to today's EU, to fulfill an idea promoted by Charles DeGaulle, based on his experience in dealing with Algeria's breakaway from France. The EAD's goals were to ensure the supply of oil for the energy-thirsty continent and to deflect terror away from Europe. These needs became pressing after the 1972 murder of 11 of Israel's Olympic athletes in Munich, and in 1973, when Arabs first used their "oil weapon" to pressure militarily superior Israel during the Yom Kippur War. The European goals are clear and simple. What about the Arabs' goals? According to Bat Ye'or, their goal of Jihad is equally clear and simple: Jihad is clearly delineated in the Koran as the religious duty to conquer the entire world for Islam. The two ways to achieving Islamic rule are by acculturation or by force. In either case, the result is the same: Sharia (Islamic) law governs. It's Bat Ye'or's contention that the EAD has effectively turned Europeans into dhimmis. Now there is Jihad and there is jihad, just as there are two meanings for the word revolution (war / dramatic change). Someone can go on a jihad to clean up the environment. It's the classical Jihad that Middle East experts like Bat Ye'or discuss in their books and statements. Their definition of Jihad includes four stages. To convert the infidels is the simplest way. To encourage them to submit to Islamic rule (become dhimmis) is next best. If the Muslims are unable to achieve either of these, a temporary interruption of conflict is acceptable. (This is the current modus operandi against Israel: war interrupted by periods of "calm", to enable Islamist forces to strengthen themselves.) Last, when Muslims become strong enough, outright war erupts. Iran is currently orchestrating the last two stages against Israel through its puppets, Hizbullah and Hamas. Returning to the EAD, Bat Ye'or described the price that Europeans have paid to the Arabs to guarantee their supply of oil and to steer terrorism away from Europe. A main tenet of the agreement was that Europe would align its foreign policy with the Arabs against Israel and America and towards the PLO and Yasser Arafat. This would lead to the delegitimization of Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state. In addition, Europe was required to open its borders to Muslims from the south, N. Africa, and the east, the western Mediterranean countries. Europe would allow a one-way population and culture transfer in the Arabs' favor. Obviously, no Europeans were moving en masse to Turkey or Morocco. There would no transfer of European culture and languages south and east to Muslim countries, thereby assuring that the vast majority of immigrants would fail to assimilate into their host countries in Europe and would remain largely segregated. It wasn't really a fair fight to begin with. After enduring what was basically a 31-year war (WWI and WWII), Europe chose the way of "peace": any policy that avoids war is preferable to confrontation. Multiculturalism was the route to achieve this goal. The Germans accepted millions of Turks; the French millions of N. Africans. Even other smaller countries (Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Hungary) now have Muslim populations of up to 10%. Britain, for instance, made it a policy to give Muslim radicals refugee status with the proviso –– which failed –– that terror attacks would be perpetrated outside of her boundaries. A charitable interpretation of European intentions credits their diplomats with good intentions coupled with a woeful lack of foresight. But for the Muslims, the EAD was the thin edge of the wedge. Jihad would follow once the Arabs had gained a significant foothold on the European continent. Ye'or described some of the gloomy trends throughout Europe since 1974, when the EAD was founded: the rise of the supranational European Parliament, which has eroded the power of individual states and opened the continent to the possibility of an Islamic takeover; the emergence of a self-imposed dhimmitude, whereby Europeans kowtow to Arab money and influence, while demonstrations against Arab influence are automatically designated "Islamophobia"; the rise of the cult of "Palestinianism", by which Israel may ultimately be forced into one large state with an Arab majority; the Islamic threat to replace the Jewish and Christian faiths; and the replacement of European identity by Muslim identity. There is a brighter, countervailing reaction which has been evident since 2005. Bat Ye'or mentioned the more conservative leaders who have been elected lately in France, Germany, and Italy. She welcomed the outcry against the murder of Theo van Gogh after his release of a film critical towards Islam. And Bat Ye'or didn't discount the disgust around the world at the rioting which greeted the newspaper publication of the "Mohammed cartoons". These reactions may signal a revolt by stalwart Europeans to the threat of their homeland being appropriated by Muslims, whose population is growing while the native European birthrate is below replacement level. Because Bat Ye'or's thesis is controversial, an academic from Tel Aviv University, Uriya Shavit, was asked to respond to her remarks. He stressed that the continent is not yet "Eurabia" and mentioned the recently elected conservative leaders. He pointed out that Europe's Muslim population is not solely Arab, but consists of Turks, Indonesians, Arabs, and others. He stressed that oil is the source of Arab power and that if the commitment is made, the West can limit its dependency on oil, thereby reducing Arab clout. Bat Ye'or agreed with his points but stated that European policy continues to stress Palestinianism, apart from what recently elected leaders may think. For example, the European media coverage of Israel's 60th anniversary of independence featured the "nakba" (the Palestinian "catastrophe" of 1948) as much as it covered Israel's birthday. She noted the influence of anti-Semitism in Europe, which is subtle but pervasive. In conclusion, Bat Ye'or pointed out the dire consequences of European pacifism when confronted with Jihad. A question from the audience was posed by another well-known academic in Middle Eastern Studies. He asked Bat Ye'or how could she be so certain that the Europeans had jumped into bed with the Arabs? She asked him a simple question, "Have you read my book?" If so, he should have been familiar with all the documentation needed to recognize what a European sell-out the EAD represents. The West ignores Bat Ye'or only at its peril. I think the tenuous "calm" or "cease-fire" that Prime Minister Olmert recently negotiated with Hamas perfectly illustrates the need for the clarity and directness that Bat Ye'or epitomizes. Olmert insists that the cease-fire agreement includes a halt to weapons smuggling from Gaza. Hamas Prime Minister Haniyeh denies (June 29) that Hamas agreed to any such thing. Who are you going to believe? Contact Steve Kramer at sjk1@jhu.edu This was written for this week's Jewish Times. |
|
jun08.202">
SHOMRON JEWISH SETTLEMENT LEADER WARNS MIGRON WILL BE 'SECOND AMONA'
Posted by Gil Ronen, June 26, 2008. |
|
(IsraelNN.com) Shomron Regional Council Head Gershon Masika said Wednesday that the struggle over the community of Migron, which the government has slated for demolition, will be "a second Amona" and will make that confrontation look like no more than an "opening shot." %ad% In an interview for this weekend's issue of SOS-Israel's leaflet, "Eretz Yisrael Shelanu," Masika said: "The attempt to make ourselves look beautiful for the general public and show them that we are nice, not 'extremists,' and want to connect to them with love, doesn't work. The general public understands nuances and it understood that in the struggle for Gush Katif we were not determined enough to hold on to the land. "The result of the policy that led to the expulsion is that nobody gives a hoot about the expellees. They were thrown to the dogs and they are down and out and humiliated in refugee camps. Experience has thus shown that we need to change the policy. Our line of argumentation is not political, but very simple: the Land of Israel is ours and we will not give up a single grain of sand. Besides that, the concessions cause Jewish blood to be spilled." 'Go on the offensive' "It is time to switch to an offensive war and stop being on the defensive all the time," Masika said. "We need to shout that the emperor has no clothes. The governments took us from bad to worse, from concession to concession, and brought us down to the gates of hell. They have no ideological or security value anymore, and they only serve our enemies." Asked about the events at Yitzhar last week, he said: "The evacuation did not proceed with ease. There was serious resistance with dozens wounded on both sides. And the main thing is that by the grace of G-d, on the same night of the destruction of the structure, the new caravan at Givat Shaked was built, which shows great determination. "As council head I tried to be there and prevent the violence and rioting by the uniform-wearers against the wonderful, devoted and ideological youth that is worthy of all praise. We admire this wonderful youth, that is the pride of Judea and Samaria and gives us great pride." Not lambs any more "The lesson of Gush Katif is that going like lambs to the slaughter yields no benefit but only means going from bad to worse, to a complete destruction of the State of Israel, of the military, of the communities, a deep chasm through society and bleeding wounds that will apparently never heal." Masika, who was elected in the aftermath of the Disengagement and is not considered a part of the old Yesha leadership establishment, explained: "When you demand your rights without caring about the cost, the treatment you will receive will be, at the very worst, what the Druze got and what the Bedouins in the Negev got. They don't give a second thought to anything and that is why they are not uprooted, even though this is not their land." "If the country does not wake up at the last minute, Migron will be a second Amona, with all of the serious meaning that involves. The reason the residents of Gush Katif were thrown to the dogs was that the eviction was wrapped in promises that supposedly, it would improve the security situation, and also improve the evacuees' lives. In fact they saw that the eviction not only did not improve anything, it actually made security worse and the evacuees reached rock-bottom." 'Daring struggle' ahead "We will fight for every clod of earth. As the Arabs –– lehavdil –– say, that the land is sacred and one may not give up a single grain. Our struggle for the land is an existential necessity. We received it from the Kadosh Baruch Hu rightfully and no one is permitted to give it up. And the main thing like I said is that this is simply a security matter for the lives of millions of Jews. The State of Israel also understands that the planned eviction will not go smoothly. There will be a determined struggle and daring here with no compromises, and Amona will seem like an opening shot compared to it. "I learned two things from the Expulsion, Masika added: "The real field of battle is the political one. That is why we must unite all of the forces in a single bloc with no differences, and the uniting cry should be the one uttered by Mattityahu the Maccabee, "mi leHashem elai!" ("Whoever is for the Lord –– let him come to me!"), and then we will be able to infuse the public with a new spirit. "With HaShem's help, the day is not far when the leadership shall come out of the religious and hareidi public. Only we have the values, the clinging to Torah and Land and soil, as opposed to the alienated and disconnected secular leadership." Gil Ronen writes for Arutz-7
|
|
DEMOCRACY IS NOT HIDING THE TRUTH FROM THE PUBLIC!
Posted by HaDaR, June 26, 2008. |
|
Democracy IS NOT hiding the truth from the public! Releasing live terrorists for corpses will encourage the killing of hostages since even as bodies they can be ransomed for very live arch terrorists This below is by Dr. Aaron Lerner and is entitled, "Decision making with blinders: The Olmert Cabinet's upcoming vote to release Kuntar," and is from IMRA. Dr. Aaron Lerner is Director of IMRA, Independent Media Review and Analysis, an Israel-based news organization which provides an extensive digest of media, polls and significant interviews and events relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il Write him at imra@netvision.net.il |
|
April 22, 1979: Samir Kuntar shoots Danny Haran in front of his 5 year old daughter, Einat, and then smashes in Einat's skull against a rock with his rifle. This is the monster that the Government of Israel intends to decide this Sunday to trade for two apparently dead soldiers. But that's only part of the story. The gross manipulations and machinations that have proceeded the upcoming Cabinet vote serves as a frightening indication of the absence of a serious and proper decision making process in the Olmert administration. Here is a review of this most bizarre situation: A key argument that has been raised by supporters of the trade of Kuntar for Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev is that Goldwasser's wife, Karnit, is a live hostage since, under Jewish law, she cannot remarry until it is determined that her husband is indeed dead. Is the Rabbinate unable to make this determination in the absence of a body? Well, at this very moment the Chief Rabbi of the IDF, Rabbi Avichai Ronsky, is studying the evidence. One would think that the Olmert Cabinet would want to know Rabbi Ronsky's finding in this very painful and crucial matter before approving the trade. But the opposite is the case. In fact, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert instructed IDF Chief of Staff Ashkenazi to order Rabbi Ronsky to postpone his determination until after the Cabinet vote. Ashkenazi explained to Olmert that he was not in a position to issue such an order to Rabbi Ronsky. This crucial Cabinet decision vote is slated to be made early next week regardless of if Rabbi Ronsky completes his work before the vote or not. This is indeed shocking. This goes far beyond the deliberate misrepresentation of the consequences of a bodies for terrorist deal (as if the concern is that it would encourage more kidnappings when in fact the overarching concern is that it will encourage the killing of hostages since even as bodies they can be ransomed for very live arch terrorists). We have here an open and deliberate move by very highest echelons of the Olmert Administration to knowingly bar vital and extremely relevant information from the decision making process. In this instance, this is taking place for all the world to see. But who is to say that this is the exception and not the rule? And this at a time that the Olmert administration faces many challenges and decisions –– and may very well be embarking on what might be a "diplomatic fire sale" as it struggles to come up with some "achievement" it can point to before it finds itself struggling for survival at the ballot box. HaDaR can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net. |
|
WHAT SAMIR KUNTAR DID TO MY FAMILY
Posted by Naomi Ragen, June 26, 2008. |
|
Below I have sent you the story of baby-killer Samir Kuntar.
It was written by Smadar Haran Kaiser and appeared May 18, 2003
in the Washington Post
Now, the widow of Danny Haran, who lost her husband and two baby girls to Kuntar, reveals that the mastermind behind Kuntar –– and the terrorists who threw Leon Klinghoffer overboard in his wheelchair on the Achille Lauro –– was picked up by our troops in Iraq this past April. She wants America to try him for destroying her family. So do I. Naomi |
|
Abu Abbas, the former head of a Palestinian terrorist group who was captured in Iraq on April 15, is infamous for masterminding the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro. But there are probably few who remember why Abbas's terrorists held the ship and its 400-plus passengers hostage for two days. It was to gain the release of a Lebanese terrorist named Samir Kuntar, who is locked up in an Israeli prison for life. Kuntar's name is all but unknown to the world. But I know it well. Because almost a quarter of a century ago, Kuntar murdered my family. It was a murder of unimaginable cruelty, crueler even than the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, the American tourist who was shot on the Achille Lauro and dumped overboard in his wheelchair. Kuntar's mission against my family, which never made world headlines, was also masterminded by Abu Abbas. And my wish now is that this terrorist leader should be prosecuted in the United States, so that the world may know of all his terrorist acts, not the least of which is what he did to my family on April 22, 1979. It had been a peaceful Sabbath day. My husband, Danny, and I had picnicked with our little girls, Einat, 4, and Yael, 2, on the beach not far from our home in Nahariya, a city on the northern coast of Israel, about six miles south of the Lebanese border. Around midnight, we were asleep in our apartment when four terrorists, sent by Abu Abbas from Lebanon, landed in a rubber boat on the beach two blocks away. Gunfire and exploding grenades awakened us as the terrorists burst into our building. They had already killed a police officer. As they charged up to the floor above ours, I opened the door to our apartment. In the moment before the hall light went off, they turned and saw me. As they moved on, our neighbor from the upper floor came running down the stairs. I grabbed her and pushed her inside our apartment and slammed the door. Outside, we could hear the men storming about. Desperately, we sought to hide. Danny helped our neighbor climb into a crawl space above our bedroom; I went in behind her with Yael in my arms. Then Danny grabbed Einat and was dashing out the front door to take refuge in an underground shelter when the terrorists came crashing into our flat. They held Danny and Einat while they searched for me and Yael, knowing there were more people in the apartment. I will never forget the joy and the hatred in their voices as they swaggered about hunting for us, firing their guns and throwing grenades. I knew that if Yael cried out, the terrorists would toss a grenade into the crawl space and we would be killed. So I kept my hand over her mouth, hoping she could breathe. As I lay there, I remembered my mother telling me how she had hidden from the Nazis during the Holocaust. "This is just like what happened to my mother," I thought. As police began to arrive, the terrorists took Danny and Einat down to the beach. There, according to eyewitnesses, one of them shot Danny in front of Einat so that his death would be the last sight she would ever see. Then he smashed my little girl's skull in against a rock with his rifle butt. That terrorist was Samir Kuntar. By the time we were rescued from the crawl space, hours later, Yael, too, was dead. In trying to save all our lives, I had smothered her. The next day, Abu Abbas announced from Beirut that the terrorist attack in Nahariya had been carried out "to protest the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty" at Camp David the previous year. Abbas seems to have a gift for charming journalists, but imagine the character of a man who protests an act of peace by committing an act of slaughter. Two of Abbas's terrorists had been killed by police on the beach. The other two were captured, convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Despite my protests, one was released in a prisoner exchange for Israeli POWs several months before the Achille Lauro hijacking. Abu Abbas was determined to find a way to free Kuntar as well. So he engineered the hijacking of the Achille Lauro off the coast of Egypt and demanded the release of 50 Arab terrorists from Israeli jails. The only one of those prisoners actually named was Samir Kuntar. The plight of hundreds held hostage on a cruise ship for two days at sea lent itself to massive international media coverage. The attack on Nahariya, by contrast, had taken less than an hour in the middle of the night. So what happened then was hardly noticed outside of Israel. One hears the terrorists and their excusers say that they are driven to kill out of desperation. But there is always a choice. Even when you have suffered, you can choose whether to kill and ruin another's life, or whether to go on and rebuild. Even after my family was murdered, I never dreamed of taking revenge on any Arab. But I am determined that Samir Kuntar should never be released from prison. In 1984, I had to fight my own government not to release him as part of an exchange for several Israeli soldiers who were POWs in Lebanon. I understood, of course, that the families of those POWs would gladly have agreed to the release of an Arab terrorist to get their sons back. But I told Yitzhak Rabin, then defense minister, that the blood of my family was as red as that of the POWs. Israel had always taken a position of refusing to negotiate with terrorists. If they were going to make an exception, let it be for a terrorist who was not as cruel as Kuntar. "Your job is not to be emotional," I told Rabin, "but to act rationally." And he did. So Kuntar remains in prison. I have been shocked to learn that he has married an Israeli Arab woman who is an activist on behalf of terrorist prisoners. As the wife of a prisoner, she gets a monthly stipend from the government. I'm not too happy about that. In recent years, Abu Abbas started telling journalists that he had renounced terrorism and that killing Leon Klinghoffer had been a mistake. But he has never said that killing my family was a mistake. He was a terrorist once, and a terrorist, I believe, he remains. Why else did he spend these last years, as the Israeli press has reported, free as a bird in Baghdad, passing rewards of $25,000 from Saddam Hussein to families of Palestinian suicide bombers? More than words, that kind of cash prize, which is a fortune to poor families, was a way of urging more suicide bombers. The fortunate thing about Abbas's attaching himself to Hussein is that it set him up for capture. Some say that Italy should have first crack at Abbas. It had already convicted him of the Achille Lauro hijacking in absentia in 1986. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi now wants Abbas handed over so that he can begin serving his life sentence. But it's also true that in 1985, the Italians had Abbas in their hands after U.S. fighter jets forced his plane to land in Sicily. And yet they let him go. So while I trust Berlusconi, who knows if a future Italian government might not again wash its hands of Abbas? In 1995, Rabin, then our prime minister, asked me to join him on his trip to the White House, where he was to sign a peace agreement with Yasser Arafat, which I supported. I believe that he wanted me to represent all Israeli victims of terrorism. Rabin dreaded shaking hands with Arafat, knowing that those hands were bloody. At first, I agreed to make the trip, but at the last minute, I declined. As prime minister, Rabin had to shake hands with Arafat for political reasons. As a private person, I did not. So I stayed here. Now I am ready and willing to come to the United States to testify
against Abu Abbas if he is tried for terrorism. The daughters of Leon
Klinghoffer have said they are ready to do the same. Unlike
Klinghoffer, Danny, Einat and Yael were not American citizens. But
Klinghoffer was killed on an Italian ship in Abbas's attempt to free
the killer of my family in Israel. We are all connected by the
international web of terrorism woven by Abbas. Let the truth come out
in a new and public trial. And let it be in the United States, the
leader in the struggle against terrorism.
ADDENDUM June 27, 2008: A number of you have pointed out to me that the article by Smadar Haran Kaiser was published in 2003 and that in 2004, there were reports that Abu Abbas had died in U.S. custody in Iraq. However, according to Jerusalem advocate Nitsana Darshan Leitner, there has never been conclusive evidence of this. And Kuntar is about to be released by the Israelis in a deal with terrorists. Nitsana explains. When Abu Abbas (AKA Muhammad Zaydan) was first reported to be arrested by US troops in Iraq in April 2003, our organization Shurat HaDin immediately wrote to the Israeli government asking that they extradite Abu Abbas and place him on trial in Israel. In addition to his involvement in the Haran family murders and the murder of Leon Klinghoeffer on the Achille Luro, Abu Abbas's group, the PLF, was also responsible for the murder of a Russian-Israeli teen in Neve Yaakov named Yuri Gerstein in 2003. (This was after Israel allowed Abu Abbas to relocate to Gaza as part of the reckless Oslo Process! I had filed several petitions in the High Court of Justice demanding that Abu Abbas be arrested for the Achille Lauro and Haran attacks. But the High Court repeatedly said that they would not interfere with the government's decision to allow Abu Abbas in. Abu Abbas was even spotted on a walking tour of the Old City and at Orient House at one point. This continued until Abu Abbas eventually was accused by the Shin Bet of a ordering bombing near Haifa, an attack on the airport and the murder in Neve Yaakov. Before the Shin Bet caught him he had again fled back to Iraq). Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at www.naomiragen.com, where you can subscribe to her newsletter. |
|
FROM ISRAEL: DISGUST
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 26, 2008. |
|
I have just returned from two weeks in the US and will now be picking up my postings, which I hope to run several times a week. I have returned with a sense of disgust at what is happening here, and, quite simply, bewilderment that it could be so. But that bewilderment is hardly new. I am determined –– may the Almighty bring me the strength –– not to be defeated by this state of affairs, but rather to fight it to the best of my ability. ~~~~~~~~~~ With more to follow soon, let me here touch on the temporary ceasefire, or tadhiyah, with Hamas in Gaza, which was put into place last week. In my opinion –– and the opinion of many other analysts –– this agreement (which is not written) is a colossal mistake that weakens our deterrence power and strengthens Hamas. Hamas has said forthrightly that it will not halt smuggling of weapons. According to YNet, "The smuggling operation is a huge, well-oiled machine which cannot be stopped by a verbal agreement with Egypt." Of course they won't halt strengthening of forces and building of weapons inside of Gaza either. We're being set up for a harder hit from Hamas down the road just so that Olmert can avoid military action now and claim to have brought quiet to Sderot. Talk about short-sighted! ~~~~~~~~~~ What is more, our cessation of operations in Gaza was not tied in any way to the release of Gilad Shalit, in spite of the fact that Olmert had not so long ago insisted that there would be no ceasefire unless we got Shalit in return. In fact, we have now resumed indirect negotiations –– via Egyptian mediation –– with Hamas for Shalit's release, which means we are once again considering their demands for the release of some of their terrorists from our prisons. ~~~~~~~~~~ And there's more, as Israel is preparing to open crossings into Gaza –– something else we said we wouldn't do unless Shalit was released. On Tuesday the terrorists broke the ceasefire. when three rockets were fired into Israel. Islamic Jihad took credit. But Hamas leader Khalil al-Haya declared that no action would be taken by Hamas against "militants" who break the ceasefire: "No one will enjoy a happy moment seeing Hamas holding a rifle in the face of a resistance fighter." So what good is a ceasefire, if not everyone is on board? Olmert offered up words of indignation but did nothing about this. ~~~~~~~~~~ For additional insight into this situation, I recommend a piece from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, "Hamas's Interest in the Tahdiyah (Temporary Truce) with Israel," by Jonathan Halevi: http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID= 1&TMID=111&FID=375&PID=0&IID=2181&TTL= The_Hamas_Interest_in_the_Tahdiya_(Temporary_Truce)_ with_Israel_with_Israel_Axis ~~~~~~~~~~ There is potentially one redeeming factor here, which doesn't actually excuse Olmert's position on this matter but mitigates it a bit. There is the possibility that Israeli leaders are planning a major operation in Gaza and setting the scene for it in the manner I've been describing. Olmert and company are regrettably obsessed with looking like the "good guys" in world opinion. According to this logic, if we first demonstrate that we tried ever so hard to create a peaceful situation and then Hamas breaks the ceasefire (which it is a good bet Hamas will do), then we will have more support for going in militarily. There is some thought that this may be what is happening. This seems to me pathetic. As to world opinion, why not simply call the world's attention to the fact that Hamas has been holding our soldier for two years, and has already amassed in Gaza more than 120 tons of explosives, more than 1,000 machine guns, 32,000 Kalashnikovs, 4,000 RPG launchers, hundreds of rockets, dozens of anti-aircraft missiles, and several hundred mortar shells, while training an army of 11,000? All of this –– which is hardly evidence of peaceful intentions –– provides more than sufficient rationale. Ultimately, anyway, we must act for our own defense whether the world gets it or not. ~~~~~~~~~~ Hopefully, more to follow tomorrow... Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
P.M.: "ISRAEL IS TRANSFERRING HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF SHEKELS TO HAMAS IN GAZA"
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 26, 2008. |
|
FOR A COPY OF THE SHURAT HADIN LETTER AND THE PMO's RESPONSE: Contact Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, 011.972.52.383.7020
|
|
In an unprecedented admission, the office of Israel's Prime Minister revealed today that it is, in fact, allowing the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars to the Hamas terrorist organization in Gaza due to "Israeli diplomatic considerations." In a response letter sent to Attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, director of human rights organization Shurat HaDin –– Israel Law Center, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) wrote that the transfer of funds to the Hamas controlled government in the Gaza Strip does indeed regularly take place after "consultations among the relevant bodies." Shurat HaDin had accused the Israeli government of secretly transferring hard currency to the Hamas. "At this point," states the PMO's letter, dated June 25, 2008, "due to conclusions that there is an Israeli interest that the transfer of funds continue, a decision was made to continue to transfer certain sums of money to the Gaza Strip." The PMO's letter was dispatched to Shurat HaDin, an organization representing hundreds of terror victims in an ongoing global battle against terror funding, in response to a series of warning letters from the group to the Prime Minister, the Bank of Israel and the Israel Postal Bank, in which Shurat HaDin demanded that all transfers of funds to the Hamas terrorists and Hamas controlled organs in the Gaza Strip be immediately terminated. In the initial letter of warning sent by Shurat HaDin on behalf of victims of Hamas terror attacks to the PMO, Attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner wrote: "The currency of record in the Gaza Strip is the New Israeli Shekel (NIS)." Most of the financial activity in the Gaza Strip runs on a cash basis, using the NIS. Tens of thousands of Hamas terrorists and governmental official get their salary in Israeli currency –– in cash. Thus, the transfer of large sums of cash into the Gaza Strip is, by definition, an act that directly fuels the terrorist activity of Hamas and is therefore a violation of the Terror-Funding Act of 2005 and the domestic and international laws against money laundering." The warning letters from Shurat HaDin also note that a portion of the cash funneled into Gaza by Israel is used to replace Israeli currency in Hamas' coffers that has physically deteriorated and another portion serves the international money laundering trade, most notably the money "smuggled" by Hamas from Iran via the Egyptian border. Without these criminal acts, Hamas' financial hold on the Strip would collapse and thus
these measures are directly responsible for shoring up the Hamas control
over Gaza and its continued terrorist activity launched from the
region.
THE PMO'S LETTER REVEALS FOR THE FIRST TIME, that the Israeli government allows and encourages the financial support for the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip –– knowingly and willingly. In reaction to the PMO's letter Attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner stated that "the government of Israel cannot fight against the Hamas terrorist organization with one hand, and continue to secretly finance it with the other. Hypocritically, the Prime Minister demands governments around the world isolate and and embargo the Hamas terrorists in Gaza, and stop transferring funds to them while at the same time he authorizes the transfer of Israeli currency into the hands of the enemy. This government claims to be fighting against the smuggling of tens of millions of dollars and euro into the Gaza Strip via the Egyptian border, all the while participating in the laundering of this money by exchanging them for New Israeli Shekels." "There can be no doubt that the Israeli government's policy of transferring shekels is assisting the Hamas terrorists with their missile attacks on the Negev communities. If the Prime Minister does not immediately halt the currency transfers to Gaza, Shurat HaDin will take all legal means available against the government to bring this terror financing to a close." Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
ISLAMIC HATERS DEMAND HATE-SPEECH LAWS; ISLAMISTS IN SCHOOLS; IDEOLOGICAL AXIOMS; ISRAELI POSTURING
Posted by Richard Shulman, June 26, 2008. |
|
U.S. WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE AGAINST OLMERT The US has held off turning over evidence against PM Olmert. It claims it doesn't want to seem to interfere with Israeli governmental matters (IMRA, 6/11). The US interferes intensely in internal Israeli affairs. Delay, however, hinders justice. The US isn't interested in justice. It prefers to bolster the crippled Prime Minister who, as the US wishes, desperately makes concessions to the Arabs in the hope that he can pretend for a while to have accomplished something. HATERS DEMAND HATE-SPEECH LAWS A Canadian magazine argued in strident terms that Islam threatens Western values. Members of the Canadian Islamic Congress demand that the Magazine publish a rebuttal, compensate Muslims for injuring their "dignity, feelings, and self-respect," and should be barred from such writing. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal will rule on whether the magazine violated the law. Unlike most Western democracies, the US allows magazines to write like the Canadian one, publishing "even false, provocative or hateful things –– without legal consequence." The US does not want government deciding what speech to allow. The anti-hate laws don't deal with facts but feelings. Canada prefers to arbitrate which opinions are permissible, in favor of societal harmony. Anthony Lewis would prohibit speech likely to inspire murder, not necessarily immediately. The limit in the US is incitement to immediate riot or posing immediate danger. The Canadian plaintiff argued that innocent intent, fair comment on true facts, publication in the public interest, and responsible journalism are no defense against prosecution (Adam Liptak, NY Times, 6/12, A1). Censorship is appealing, because one supposes the censor would share one's values. Suppose he doesn't? Government, which tends to try to control society, and lobbyists who try to control government, should be left out of it. Let the people decide. I'm proud of the American way in this issue. I'm worried about eroding democracy in the other states. Truth should be a defense. If the accusations are true, then the group being criticized deserves the criticism. In the adjudicated case, the accusation is true. Islam is threatening Western values and is trying to bring down Western civilization. I would rather have somebody warn society about it, than be denied it lest Muslim offenders take offense at the truth about them. The Canadian law is phony, because Muslims preach hatred without penalty! In Israel, they urge the murder of Jews, but only right-wing Jews are called racist. ISRAEL'S ANSWER TO BOMBARDMENT: RUN & HIDE The government proposes spending millions on a system for warning residents near Gaza when mortars are approaching, instead of invading Gaza and catching the terrorists who otherwise would fire those mortars (IMRA, 6/12). Residents would have a few seconds to run and hide in a shelter. ISLAMISTS IN U.S. SCHOOLS Losing militarily, Islamists have seeking to subvert the US ideologically. In Texas, a school brought in Islamist guest speakers from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, known for pro-terrorism sympathy. This was done under the guise of an Islamic Awareness presentation. The school apologized. In Florida, a school admittedly broke the law by having a presentation on the Koran and Islam, and without having screened the speakers or notifying parents. The school stopped calling on the Islamic presenting organization. A Michigan school had a Saudi Bedouin tent program. Students participated in Islamic rituals. Female students were segregated, sidelines, and shrouded. A Minnesota charter school run by Muslims used public funds to promote Islamic religious practices. ACLU's Minnesota branch objected, the school system confirmed the complaints, and the school officials promised to stop those practices. The New York City madrassa on public funds (Mayor Bloomberg doing) keeps promoting Islam. Two imams are on its school board. Many school textbooks' sections on Islam are written by Islamist organizations. The books are "factually inaccurate, misrepresent and in some cases, glorify Islam, or are hostile to other religions." Trouble is, Saudi subsidies tempt people to accept propagandistic books, though parents are protesting in various areas and some are getting those books removed. The US government subsidizes a university Middle Eastern Studies Center and approved a K-12 curriculum it developed but which S. Arabia financed. S. Arabia also finances training for teachers! The trainers are accused of promoting hatred of other religions. Arabia pays, the trainers evidence bias. So far, the big effort has been to keep Church and State separate, but communities only now are gearing up to keep Mosque and State separate (Cinnamon Stillwell, MEFNews, 6/12). ISRAEL'S REASON FOR CEASEFIRE: DON'T INSULT EGYPT That's what is reported. Israel doesn't like the ceasefire arrangement proposed by Egypt, but doesn't want to reject it lest Mubarak feel insulted. Israeli Defense Min. Barak also doesn't want to be diverted from politics by war, so the offensive into Gaza that he said was imminent he is putting off. A ceasefire would boost Hamas' combat forces when the offensive does start (IMRA, 6/12). How would Barak's politics look, when avoidable casualties mount? Not to insult Mubarak is a reason? Mubarak insults Israel often. He doesn't worry about it. But Israel doesn't want to jeopardize its ties with Egypt. What ties? Mubarak insults Israel. Egypt breaks its treaty with Israel. Egypt doesn't even have an ambassador in Israel, so hostile is it. Egypt tries to protect the terrorists from Israel. Egypt doesn't stop arm smuggling into Gaza. But Israel would accept a poor deal so Mubarak gets credit for a deal. THE AWKWARDNESS OF LEFTIST POLITICS Israel hosted an international conference on national security, at an Israeli hotel. It asked the hotel to fly the flags of all the participants. That included the P.A. flag. People complained to the hotel manager, but he was acting at government request. Israel does this with other conferences, too (IMRA, 6/12). Not being a state, Israel should not fly its flag. That's the legal aspect. The moral aspect is that the P.A. is at war with Israel. Israel should not fly the P.A. flag. It mocks the Jewish people. Since the P.A. is one of the dangers to Israel's national security, Israel should not invite the P.A.. Unfortunately, the governing class of Israel is leftist. It wants there to be a P.A. state at Israel's expense. Many Israeli professors cheer on terrorism against their own people. Israeli government policy echoes that sick Left. IDEOLOGICAL AXIOMS Most Israeli security analysts consider it axiomatic that if Israeli troops undertake a strong offensive against Gaza, they must exit soon afterwards. They do not explain why, they just assume it. As a result, they do not allow enough time for the offensive to end the problem of terrorism. Therefore, total costs of a brief offensive would exceed those of a lengthier one (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 6/12). The analysts don't really analyze, then, do they? They assume. They unnecessarily restrict Israel. That ill serves their country. Israeli "intelligence" has failed badly at times when it has too many preconceptions. ISRAELI PRIMARIES AFFECTING POLICY Defense Min. Barak observed that the coming primaries have affected policy in self-serving ways and diverted politicians' attention from analyzing policy. He accuses PM Olmert irresponsibility –– delaying the ceasefire. [He did not explain how it was being delayed, when Hamas rejects some of Israel's key conditions.] Barak denies that his withdrawal of the IDF from Lebanon allowed Hizbullah to gather 42,000 missiles. He claimed he withdrew in response to Hizbullah's rise and Olmert shouldn't have left Hizbullah in position after the war to build such a force. How can the Defense Minister consider it more responsible to make a ceasefire, during which Hamas could accumulate missiles and other forces, so that when the truce ends, the IDF would sustain many more casualties? (IMRA, 6/13.) Hizbullah was a small force and not winning, when Barak fled Lebanon. That allowed it to build up. Olmert did the same, with his war. If Barak had kept the IDF in Lebanon, Israel could have built up a free Lebanon and certain kept that border safe for itself. Barak was irresponsible, Olmert was irresponsible, and so were Rabin, Peres, Sharon, and Netanyahu. ISRAELI POSTURING Eleven of the 12 members of the Israeli Cabinet have declared against a ceasefire with Gaza and in favor of a decisive offensive. Some of them spoke publicly about it and eloquently, declaring the lack of an offensive a failure of governmental leadership. When it came to the vote authorizing a ceasefire, however, almost all voted for it or abstained (IMRA, 6/12). Israeli officials posture. They are not decisive. The party system, proportional representation, the leftist monopoly of the media and academia, and foreign bribery, as contrasted with an independent media, objective academics, district representation, a vigorous education and instilling of Jewish values, brings out the worst in Israeli politicians. The public should find new parties with new leaders, leaders having values, and should demand reform of the system. IS ABBAS A MODERATE? Abbas ordered the execution of dozens of Arabs accused of helping Israel prevent terrorism. International protest stayed his hand (IMRA, 6/13) but the so-called collaborators remain punished. Abbas does much more for terrorism than against it. There is no good reason to consider him moderate. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear regularly in 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 |
|
THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD –– PREACHING HATE, TEACHING TERROR ON OUR CAMPUSES
Posted by David Horowitz, June 26, 2008. |
|
"God is our objective, the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is
our leader, jihad is our way and death for the sake of God is the
highest of our aspirations."
Dear Friend, Thanks to the support of Center members like you, I've traveled to dozens of campuses this year exposing the ideology of the radical Muslims dedicated to our destruction. As you might expect, at the majority of these engagements I've been heckled, jeered, and cursed and threatened –– standard operating procedure for any leftist group trained in Marxist tactics. And in nearly every case, the demonstrators were either members of the Muslim Student Association or their sympathizers. One school in particular stands out: the University of California-Irvine –– a school that actually celebrates jihad and terror. In fact, UC-Irvine leads the nation in openly supporting Islamo-Fascism. You see, for the second straight year –– with the approval of the faculty and administration –– UCI held nothing less than a "Celebrate Terrorism Week." This year UCI, UCSB, and other college campuses held commemorations of what the radical Muslims call "the Nakba" –– the catastrophe: The creation of Israel 60 years ago. Last year's UCI event was titled: "Holocaust in the Holy Land." For the second straight year speakers talked about Israel's "holocaust" against Palestinians. Once again, those who denied the Nazi Holocaust happened at all were cheered. As I have at universities across the nation, I called on the Muslim Student Associations at UCI and UCSB to denounce the call for genocide. Neither group would stand against genocide.
I've reproduced a cartoon attack on the Center's work exposing the threat of jihad in America –– and, of course, an attack on me, as well –– by the Muslim Student Association at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Take a good look at it. You can almost feel the hate and anger which these students have for anyone who dares disclose what is at the heart of the Islamo-Fascist movement. It oozes off the page, directed at me, in this case, for exposing the professors and students on our campuses who serve as apologists for the butchers of jihad. Of course, thanks to your support, that is precisely what we're doing with our Terrorism Awareness Project (TAP). We are peeling off the veneer that shrouds the various pro-terrorist supporters across the nation. And we're also proving that the link between the Brotherhood and student Muslim groups in America is undeniable. Founded in Egypt in the late 1920s, the Muslim Brotherhood has long used violence as the primary means to its end –– strict compliance to Sharia law, death to all Jews, the oppression of all non-believers. As their motto proclaims, "...death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations." The ultra-radical, rabidly violent Muslim Brotherhood lurks behind the scenes of Muslim Student Associations across the nation! This should concern every American! The theme of our most recent IFA week was "Declaration Against Genocide" –– the one sounded by Islam's prophet Mohammed. It calls for the obliteration of all Jews. "The Prophet... said: The time [of judgment] will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them, until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!" This hatred has infiltrated our colleges without a doubt. In fact, Southern California University's Muslim Student Association has the call for genocide on its web site, verbatim. Radical Islam by its very nature is the epitome of fascism. And across our nation, our universities –– funded by your tax dollars –– are harboring what amounts to indoctrination cells of Islamo-Fascism. So, today, as part of TAP, we're launching an effort dedicated to exposing the bond between the Muslim Brotherhood and Muslim Student Associations! It's that important. We've hired a talented researcher to head the project, and we're completing our first booklet detailing the relationship between the violent Brotherhood and American MSAs. Now I'm asking for your courageous support again. We must raise $146,700 for the research, writing, publication and distribution of our new booklet, "The Muslim Students Associations and The Jihad Network". Will you help us today? Simply click on any of the blue links within this letter and make a contribution of $25, $50, or, if possible, $100 today. In fact, if you're able to make a contribution of $25 or greater today, I will rush you a FREE copy of "The Muslim Students Associations and The Jihad Network" as fast as it comes off the press! But please help us as soon as possible. This is only the beginning of our work to expose the Brotherhood's insidious infiltration of our campuses. I've always been grateful for your support, and I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely,
P.S. Remember: If you can support the Center with a gift of $25 or more right now, I will rush you a FREE copy of "The Muslim Students Associations and the Jihad Network" as soon as it's off the press. Thanks again.
David Horowitz is publisher of Front Page Magazine
(http://www.frontpagemagazine.com), a leading publication in the fight
against terrorism. He founded The Freedom Center.
Email him at info@horowitzfreedomcenter.org
|
|
THE BROKERED PEACE BROKEN IN DAYS!
Posted by Bryna Berch, June 26, 2008. |
|
Remember the Israeli definition of "cease fire?" We cease they fire! The next question: will Israel –– as usual –– feel noble and insist that they are obligated to continue the ceasefire. For a people that has produced so many lawyers, can't anyone tell them that if Party A breaks the contract, Party B has no obligation to fulfil its side of the bargain. |
|
WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!?
What on earth could have prompted the Israeli government to negotiate the current "cease-fire" with Hamas? What could have brought the government to negotiate with this Iranian proxy group which makes no bones about its intention to use the lull in fighting to expand its arsenal and army ahead of the next round of fighting? What could have motivated Jerusalem to pave the way for Hamas's acceptance as a legitimate regime in the international arena? The most vocal advocate of embracing Hamas has been Defense Minister Ehud Barak. And on the heels of the "truce," Barak and his associates are now pushing for the government to approve Hamas's demand that Israel release of up to a thousand terrorists from its prisons in exchange for Gilad Schalit, who was illegally kidnapped to Gaza two years ago. In an attempt to explain his actions, Barak spoke last week to sympathetic Ha'aretz columnist Ari Shavit. In a supportive column, Shavit explained that Barak himself is under no illusion about the nature of Hamas or the chances of reaching a long-term accommodation with the Iranian-controlled jihadist movement that seeks Israel's destruction. The rationale for the move, he explains is Barak's assertion that the only way to justify a military operation –– which will involve military and civilian casualties –– is to first demonstrate that Israel had no other recourse but to act in its own defense. As Shavit put it, "Since the repercussions of an operation could be grave, it is necessary first to try the other alternative –– so that every mother liable to lose her son in the Gaza alleyways will know. So that every civilian in the Gaza envelope liable to get hit during the fighting with Hamas will know. So that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak will know that Israel did not choose a military move, which the Egyptians fear, before giving a chance to the diplomatic move they initiated."
SINCE THIS is the line being offered by the government today to justify its actions, it is worth considering it. The first question that arises is whether Barak's expressed concern about mothers of soldiers and Israelis who live within Hamas's rocket and missile range is genuine. At Sunday's cabinet meeting, Shin Bet Director Yuval Diskin gave the government his first post-cease-fire intelligence briefing. Diskin told the cabinet ministers that since Thursday, Hamas has stepped up its arms smuggling and military training. The significance of his statement is clear. The Hamas that Israel will confront in the aftermath of Barak's cease-fire will be a more formidable foe that it was before the cease-fire. And consequently, more soldiers will need to sacrifice their lives in the postponed confrontation. And since Hamas is using this lull to expand its arsenals, it will no doubt expand the range of its missiles. Consequently, more Israeli civilians will be attacked by Hamas rockets and missiles in the inevitable, delayed showdown than would have been under fire if it had been launched this week. In other words, far from being informed by his concern for Israeli civilians and the families of soldiers, Barak's embrace of Hamas as a negotiating partner has ensured that more Israelis will be burying their loved ones when the cease-fire leads inevitably to war. Indeed, it is because of this that residents of Sderot have been the loudest proponents of military action and the angriest opponents of the government's cease-fire agreement with Hamas. So if Barak is unconcerned with the lives of Israeli soldiers and civilians, who is he playing to in negotiating the cease-fire?
LIKE MANY Israeli leaders in recent years, Barak is concerned with how the Israeli appeasement lobby will react to a confrontation. He hopes that by appeasing Hamas now, these people –– many of whom are Labor Party members and voters –– will forgive him when the inevitable occurs. Israel's appeasement lobby is comprised of Israeli Arabs, the Meretz party to which post-Zionist Labor voters and politicians can always defect, university professors, and small but well-funded pressure groups like Uri Avineri's Gush Shalom organization and Peace Now. Here it bears mention that the Labor party's membership drives in Arab villages in recent years have given its Arab members –– who vote as a bloc –– a controlling influence over the results of Labor party primaries that determine the identity of the party leader and Labor's Knesset faction. Many Labor leaders –– like former party chief Binyamin Ben Eliezer who was unseated by Arab Labor party members –– have bemoaned this fact and noted that Arab members of Labor don't even vote for the party in general elections.
WHAT IS most disturbing about Barak's pandering to Israel's appeasement lobby is that past experience has shown clearly that Israel's appeasement lobby is itself unappeaseable. That is, there nothing that Israel's enemies can do that will cause members of Israel's appeasement lobby to support IDF operations. On June 1, 2001, a Palestinian bomber exploded himself at the Dolphinarium nightclub in Tel Aviv and murdered 21 Israeli teenagers. The public outcry was deafening. Popular support for a counter terror offensive aimed at destroying the Palestinian Authority and killing or expelling arch-terrorist Yassir Arafat was at an all-time high as the dimensions of the massacre, and the identity of the victims became clear. Yet then-prime minister Ariel Sharon ignored the public and refused to act. As his spokesmen made clear, Sharon was concerned that the Israeli appeasement lobby would join forces with Europe to condemn such an IDF operation. And so, in an attempt to appease his far-Left antagonists, Sharon waited ten months to act. During that time, he engaged in fruitless US and European sponsored talks with the Palestinians. He bowed to their pressure and began referring to Judea and Samaria as "occupied," and so demoralized his own constituents. And as he took these steps, another 250 Israelis were murdered by the Palestinians. Sharon approved Operation Defensive Shield in the aftermath of the Palestinian massacre of 30 Israelis celebrating the Passover Seder at the Park Hotel in Netanya. While his supporters often laud Sharon for his courage in acting, the fact is that had Sharon not acted after the Passover massacre, the public and his party would likely have booted him out of office. Sharon's long refusal to defend his citizens from murder by the Palestinian massacre machine did not win him any sympathy with the appeasers. During Defensive Shield Uri Avineri from Gush Shalom and Israeli professors like Niv Gordon rushed to Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah to act as "human shields," physically opposing IDF operations. Israeli professors signed petitions calling for foreign divestment from Israel and urged their students to refuse to serve in reserve duty. Arab Israeli leaders like MKs Ahmed Tibi and Azmi Bishara similarly joined forces with Arafat. And of course, Europe experienced its worst wave of anti-Semitic attacks since the Holocaust as European leaders, joined by then UN secretary general Kofi Annan, and their media organs and international human right organizations lined up behind Arafat and accused Israel of committing war crimes.
IN THE end, the only ones who actively supported the IDF's 2002 counter-offensive were the Israeli public, the US public and world Jewry. And ironically, these were the same forces that would have supported an IDF offensive after the Dolphinarium massacre ten months earlier. The US government –– which did not stridently object to Operation Defensive Shield –– acted no differently than it would have if Israel had taken action at that earlier juncture. So Sharon's decision to avert confrontation for ten long months –– during which 250 Israelis were murdered and thousands were wounded –– accomplished nothing. But what about Barak's argument about Egypt? Will Egypt support a future IDF operation in Gaza when the cease-fire it has mediated falls apart? The answer here is similarly obvious: Of course not. Since 2000, when Egypt began hosting "cease-fire" talks among various terror masters in Cairo, the Mubarak regime has done more than any other government to legitimize Hamas. Moreover, in diplomatic forums, Israel has no greater enemy than Egypt. Cairo uses every international and regional stage to attack the Jewish state. Then too, Egypt has permitted Hamas to use its territory as its logistical base for arming Gaza and sending hundreds of terror operatives to Iran and Lebanon for training. Egypt has done all of this because it believes that its national
interests are advanced by weakening Israel. Were Egypt to support an
Israeli offensive against Gaza, it would be strengthening Israel. And
so under no circumstances will Cairo ever support an IDF operation
against Hamas. Pretending it will is to engage in reckless
fantasizing.
SO THEN, why has Barak led the government to embrace Hamas as a negotiating partner and a legitimate regime in Gaza? We are left with two possible explanations. Either Barak is risking the lives of Israeli soldiers and civilians to pander to the most radical elements of Israeli society while seeking to win sympathy points from Cairo in a general election campaign, or he is gullible enough to believe that Israel's radical left and the Egyptian regime are moved by facts rather than interests. It is hard to know which explanation is more distressing. 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. KASSAM ATTACK ON SDEROT –– THIRD VIOLATION OF GAZA 'CEASEFIRE' by Hana Levi Julian Arutz-7 June 26, 2008 For the third time in a week, Palestinian Authority terrorists violated the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire with Israel early Thursday afternoon. A Kassam rocket was fired at the western Negev city of Sderot shortly after 1:00 p.m. No one was injured and no property damage was reported in the attack. Prime Minister Ehud Omert's spokesman Mark Regev told Israel National News that no decisions had yet been made on a response to the attack. "We'll wait and see. Obviously we'll be having discussions," he said. Israel limited its retaliation to the previous attacks by closing the Gaza crossings for two days, which had been opened in accordance with the agreement. Islamic Jihad terrorists announced that they would consider Israel has having violated the tahadiyeh, or temporary truce, if the Gaza crossings remained closed. IDF soldiers spotted the terrorists cell that had launched the attack, immediately following the barrage of three Kassam rockets fired at Sderot on Tuesday, but did not open fire. Two Israeli civilians suffered shrapnel wounds and a number of others were treated for severe emotional shock, included several children. |
|
WING SPREAD 1
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 26, 2008. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at fred343@gmail.com
and see other of his bird graphics at
|
|
PETITION: OPEN THE TEMPLE MOUNT TO JEWISH PRAYER!
Posted by Yosef Rabin, June 26, 2008. |
|
WE HAVE THREE GOALS! 1 –– Secure the Jewish Peoples right to pray on the Temple Mount!
We will continue this campaign from now until after the fast of Tisha B'Av. Tisha B'Av is the fast day that commemorates the destruction of the two Temples that WE HAVE THREE GOALS! 1 –– Secure the Jewish Peoples right to pray on the Temple Mount! 2 –– Secure Jewish sovereignty on the Temple Mount! 3 –– Bring at least 600,000 Jews from all overt the world together for an awesome, holy and Jewish cause! We will continue this campaign from now until after the fast of Tisha B'Av. Tisha B'Av is the fast day that commemorates the destruction of the two Temples that once stood on the Temple Mount. The fast will begin at Sundown (7:57pm) on Saturday August 9th and will conclude 20 minutes after sunset (8:20pm (Gra)) on Sunday August 10th. 1st Temple was built by King Shlomo in 950BCE and was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE 2nd Temple rebuilt in 353 BCE and was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE May the 3rd and everlasting Temple be rebuilt soon! Please sign and pass on the petition!
The fast will begin at Sundown (7:57pm) on Saturday August 9th and will conclude 20 after sunset (8:20pm (Gra)) on Sunday August 10th. 1st Temple was built by King Shlomo in 950BCE and was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE 2nd Temple rebuilt in 353 BCE and was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE May the 3rd and everlasting Temple be rebuilt soon! Please sign and pass on the petition! http://www.petitiononline.com/har1/petition.html Contact Yosef Rabin at yosefrabin@yahoo.com |
|
ASSASSINATION A GOOD IDEA? SOMETIMES
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, June 25, 2008. |
|
Perhaps you recall a series of five movies starring Charles Bronson called "Death Wish" starting in 1974. His daughter was raped and then killed herself, fleeing her tormenters. Bronson, as Paul Kersey a well-known architect, began a mission of vengeance. He had a hand gun and roamed places like Central Park in New York City where thugs frequently decided he was an easy ‘mark' to be mugged, robbed or killed. He shot them dead. Soon New York's murders, robberies and rapes declined and the people were delighted. (So were the Police, although they couldn't say so.) I was thinking about this after I read about a Jewish, kippah-wearing boy, 17 year old Rudy Haddad, walking in a Jewish quarter, the 19th district of Paris on June 21st. Rudy was attacked by 15-30 "African immigrants". No one ‘said' they were Muslims. They beat him with iron bars and fractured his skull. He has just awakened from a coma. This horror story has NOT been covered in the mainstream media. (See the article from Phyllis Chesler below.) In January 2006 Ilan Halimi was brutally tortured for 3 weeks by gangs of African Muslim immigrants, along with the neighbors in Paris. He finally died on February 13, 2006. 19 of the gang are facing trial for his torture and murder. What justice it would be to wander the streets of Paris, with an automatic weapon, looking like a vulnerable Jew and simply kill any and all who came to assault a Jew. No arrests –– just seeming executions. Laws are evolved by civilized people for civilized people –– NOT for murdering thugs, especially those who believe their religion needs the fresh blood sacrifice of their victims. Muslims in France and England have invaded and brought with them the hate of their teachings in Islam. I speak of thugs and street gangs who look for victims, particularly Jews, to savagely beat and kill. Charles Bronson's screen vigilante's solution was fast and simple. No pity; no courts; no arrests –– just kill them as they come at you. Their rules are No Pity, so let all play by their rules. The article below is called "Young Jewish Boy Savagely Beaten in Paris." It is by Phyllis Chesler and it appeared today on the Chesler Chronicles –– Pajamas Media website. Dr. Chesler is the well known author of classic works, including the bestseller Women and Madness (1972) and The New Anti-Semitism (2003). She has just published The Death of Feminism: What's Next in the Struggle for Women's Freedom (Palgrave Macmillan), as well as an updated and revised edition of Women and Madness. She is an Emerita Professor of psychology and women's studies, the co-founder of the Association for Women in Psychology (1969) and the National Women's Health Network (1974). Her website is www.phyllis-chesler.com. |
|
Sometimes, novels are prophetic. I am thinking of George Orwell and Jean Raspail who both imagined life in the late 20th and early 21st century. Raspail is the novelist who imagined that a dark-skinned barbarian horde would take over France. His work, The Camp of the Saints(1973) was originally condemned as "racist." Slowly, over time, European government leaders began reading his novel and consulting with Raspail. I have written about his work before HERE and HERE in my book, The Death of Feminism. In January of 2006, Ilan Halimi was brutally tortured for three full weeks in Paris by gangs of African Muslim immigrant torturers. The media did not describe them as "Muslims," but rather as "youth," "militants," "gang-members, "immigrants," and "immigrants from Africa." Neighbors took turns and joined in torturing Halimi. Other neighbors heard his screams and did nothing. Some came to watch. Halimi died on February 13, 2006. The ringleader of the gang, Youssouf Fofana fled to Ivory Coast in Africa but was extradited back to France. He and 18 others are facing a trial in his torture and murder. American expatriate journalist, Nidra Poller, has written about this horrific case. Now, a visibly Jewish, kipah-wearing 17 year-old, Rudy Haddad, walking in a Jewish quarter, was set upon by 15-30 "African immigrants." No one is saying whether they are Muslims or not. Alright, Martians from Africa beat Haddad with iron bars and fractured his skull. Haddad, like Halimi, and like their attackers, are also of African or possibly Arab descent –– as was Sebastien Selam who was murdered in Paris in 2003. Haddad has just come out of a medically induced coma. According to a Jewish Telegraphic Agency report: "While French officials were quick to condemn the attack, most fell
short of identifying the crime as anti-Semitic, saying the police
first needed to complete their ongoing investigation. French President
Nicolas Sarkozy told reporters while visiting Israel this week that he
was "particularly shocked by what happened to a young French boy, on
the pretext that he was wearing a kipah," the AFP news agency
reported. In an initial presidential statement Sunday, Sarkozy
denounced the attack but did not draw such conclusions." Read the JTA
Report at
However, various representatives of the French Jewish community have denounced this horrific crime as "anti-Semitic" which, when last I checked, is also considered a form of racism. So, where are all the anti-racists now? I hear no condemnations. The silence is chilling. And all too predictable. Where are the mainstream media? Where is FOX, CNN, MSNBC, and the International Herald Tribune? (Only ABC ran a Reuters' 190 word story earlier today). When I googled this story, the first three pages consisted of stories filed by small bloggers and mainly by Jewish and Israeli media. (Military Photos carried a story as well). But where are The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times? For heaven's sake: Where is Le Soir, Le Monde, and Figaro? Has France's Channel 2 covered this? Arguably, Channel 2 bears a great responsibility here for that is the channel that broadcast the fake murder of Mohammed al-Dura and that sued for defamation when Philippe Karsenty described the coverage as a hoax. As we all know, the French Court found that Karsenty's criticism was not "libelous." Charles Enderlin, of Channel 2, has vowed to appeal this decision and has gotten 300 of his journalist-buddies to form a circle of support for him. I think that Haddad's grieving family and the Chabad community (to which Haddad was apparently connected since he was on his way to pray at the Beth Chaya Mouchka Lubavitch synagogue), might explore a lawsuit (or at least a demonstration) against the state-owned Channel 2 and against Enderlin. If you think this is a far-fetched suggestion, please consider the other options. Indeed, what is to be done? Do Jews world-wide, beginning in Europe, and particularly in the 19th arondissement in Paris, need Israeli Defense Forces to guard them as they walk to Parisian synagogues? Do French police officers need to guard individual Jews just as they have been forced to guard each and every synagogue and Jewish Center ever since Palestinian terrorist leader Yaser Arafat began his murderous campaign in the late 1960s of airplane hijackings, hostage taking, and synagogue and airport bombings, etc.? Must France, and for that matter, all Europe, start deporting African and/or Muslim immigrants? (Oh I can just hear the civil libertarians shutting down their minds. Even I'm slightly queasy about this suggestion). Or must France consider deporting only African and/or Muslim immigrant gang-members? (What if a gang member reforms and is rehabilitated and we deport him back to a country which practices torture and kidnaps young children as soldiers in their barbarian armies?) Well then, how about deporting African Muslim immigrant gang members who have previously been convicted of violent crimes? (But you can't hold someone's past against them, it may not predict their future, they may turn over a new leaf, etc.) Alright, then. What is the magic formula that will allow Europeans to act against the barbarians in their midst without having to live with something that is worse than barbarism, namely, that most-dreaded of accusations: "Racism?" Clearly, Europe is willing to sacrifice its Jews to African immigrant and/or to Muslim barbarism. Will it prove willing to allow secularists or Christians to also be sacrificed to barbarism as well? 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@gwinston.interaccess.com |
|
P.A.-ISRAEL RELATIONS; WHAT TO DO ABOUT GAZA?; BRAVE ISRAELI SOLDIERS;
ARAB NEWS AND OIL PRICE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 25, 2008. |
|
DID FOREIGN APPEALS TO P.A. WORK? An Israeli lawyer mounted a worldwide appeal in behalf of a P.A. Arab who tipped Israel off in advance to terrorist attacks, under sentence of death by the P.A.. The P.A. said it would not carry out the sentence (IMRA, 6/10). Maybe, or will the P.A. would carry out the sentence eventually? I guess that gunmen will fetch him from prison unopposed, and execute him brutally. GULF COOPERATION COUNCIL (GCC) VS. ISRAEL Just as it was initialing a free trade agreement with the EU, the GCC complained about the EU tendency to improve trade and cooperation with Israel. Israel, claims the GCC, violates the human rights of the Palestinian Arabs. As for GCC practice, the State Dept. calls it inhumane. The GCC dismisses the US report as politically influenced (IMRA, 6/10). "Politically influenced?" How so? Not said. The GCC simply defames the US. Actually, the US strives for good relations with the GCC, but does have to monitor human rights. The accusations against Israel are politically and religiously motivated. Fact is, the P.A. violates the human rights of Jews and Arabs. DISSEMINATING THE ARAB LINE ABOUT ZIONISM Israeli Arabs are distributing 20,000 booklets to Israeli Arab students. The booklets were written by Palestinian Arab children in Israel, the P.A., Syria, and Lebanon. They present the Arab myths about the formation of Israel and omit factual matters that mitigate against hatred of the Zionists. The project is an attempt to signify that Israeli Arabs maintain solidarity with the other Palestinian Arabs [many of whom live in Jordan, which is in Palestine] (IMRA, 6/10). Still don't think of masses of Israeli Arabs as a fifth column? P.A.-ISRAEL RELATIONS Right after Israel took risky steps to accommodate the P.A., such as to let more P.A. workers into Israel, the P.A. Prime Minister urged the EU not to upgrade relations with Israel, on the grounds that Israel oppresses P.A. Arabs. Upgrading would be worth billions to Israel. In retaliation, Israel withheld excise taxes from the P.A. for a week and deducted P.A. debts to Israeli companies. The US asked Israel to explain (IMRA, 6/10.) as if P.A. complaints aren't slander! Withheld for a week? Big deal! Why not retract the concessions? WHAT TO DO ABOUT GAZA? Hamas is preparing for a broad Israeli attack. It requests a ceasefire without pledging not to use the time to smuggle arms into Gaza, in further preparation. (IMRA, 6/10). Is an Israeli attack inevitable? Yes. Hamas is bombarding Israeli cities and expanding its range of attack. This is intolerable. But it also is building up forces to deter Israeli counter-attack, as has Hizbullah, which Hamas emulates. Since an Israeli attack is inevitable, when should it be made? The sooner Israel destroys Hamas, the fewer the bombardments and casualties from the invasion. Indeed, unless Israel rolls back its enemies, its enemies will roll over Israel. Another factor motivates Olmert. He worries whether he can survive in politics and avoid jail. His actions obviously reflect that concern. It is one reason he should resign or his Cabinet should dissolve his regime. A Prime Minister should not jeopardize national security for personal reasons. [Other reasons for Olmert and his Foreign and Defense Ministers to resign is that their short-range perspective and appeasement-minded ideology, and lack of intelligence outside of politics and corruption, render them incompetent.] How does Olmert's personal concern affect his policy? It elevates immediate public relations to top priority. His appeasement-mindedness and desire to please the hostile State Dept. keep him from decisive action against Hamas. A strong attack would mean a spike in Israeli casualties. He probably thinks his people would hold those casualties against him. [I would hold against him the fact that the casualties would have been much less had he attacked months ago and, indeed, had he started annexing Jewish and vacant parts of Gaza rather than abandoning Gaza to terrorists who now fire upon Israel.] For those reasons, some commentators anticipate a medium level attack on Gaza, followed by a ceasefire. The medium level attack would mean modest casualties. The ceasefire would keep Gaza from the headlines, no longer a continuing embarrassment. This would enable Olmert to pretend to have accomplished something. It would lessen public outrage when he offers an excessive amount of land to the P.A., while he would claim to be making peace. Of course, this would not make peace. To the contrary, It would strengthen the Islamists. If Israel were democratic, Olmert could not be so anti-Zionist. Although he has lost the confidence of the people, who oppose his giveaways, he is propped up in power by other political parties fearing a loss of seats in new elections. He gets away with all this because the one-sided media, partly under government control, favors appeasement. It makes excuses for him and fails to draw stronger conclusions for the people. BRAVE ISRAELI SOLDIERS The decorated unit slated to be first into Gaza wrote to the Chief of Staff asking that if captured and alive, they not be exchanged for a large number of enemy prisoners, and if dead, not be the excuse for release of any enemy prisoners (IMRA, 6/10). Brave soldiers. They put their country and their people before themselves. Now contrast that with the Olmert regime, which puts public relations and disproved theory before the country, and with Olmert, Sharon, and Barak, who, prosecutors allege, raise funds illegally, and with Peres, who evaded prosecution. SARKOZY NO DIFFERENT I'll allow some exaggeration because this is diplomacy and the text is written by diplomats who always allege sentimental historical connections between their country and some other, whose present regime is as low as can be. That country in this case is Syria. Pres. Sarkozy praised Pres. Assad for the agreement ending Hizbullah's show of force in Lebanon (IMRA, 6/10). The agreement advanced and recognized informally Syrian and Hizbullah hegemony over Lebanon. Nothing to praise, much to disgust! WHAT TO DO ABOUT IRAN? The NY Times had called Israel's attack on Iraq's nuclear reactor "an inexcusable and short-sighted aggression, but the memoirs of the editor then in charge admitted his mistake. Now the Times calls a potential military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities a "disaster." What would be a disaster if Iran developed nuclear weapons. We no longer seem able to stop it except militarily. The Times calls Israel's partial economic shunning of Gaza "collective punishment." Self-contradictorily, the Times calls for collective punishment of Iran by slowing gasoline sales to Iran. Having less gasoline wouldn't stop Iran from nuclear development and probably wouldn't deter it (NY Sun, 6/11, Ed.). ASSESSING BUSH'S POLICY ON ISRAEL Racing to conclude agreements with the Arabs, PM Olmert urges concluding them now, while the US president is the friendliest one. Implication: other ones would demand more of Israel. Cited as evidence is Bush's letter acknowledging that Israel should keep its settlement blocs in Judea-Samaria, a letter that the US could not disavow (Benny Avni, NY Sun, 6/11, p.7). Bush already has. He's no friend of Israel. They just assert he is. What he does contradicts that. THE THIRD ALTERNATIVE ON GAZA An Israeli reserve general posits a third alternative to ceasefire and invasion. He suggests waiting for popular pressure over deprivation in Gaza to accumulate against Hamas build up in Gaza until Hamas collapses. Hamas has lost popularity to Abbas. As the general sees it, a ceasefire would let full supplies into Gaza and the pressure out. Hamas would rearm. An invasion would cost Israel casualties but make the Arabs rally around Hamas (Arutz-7, 6/11). If the general favors the pressure on Gaza, why doesn't he recommend intensifying the pressure, instead of relieving it, as Israel is doing, as by giving money to Abbas, who passes some on to Gaza? He might have mentioned what a chance waiting takes. It lets Hamas build up more forces, though slowly. Arabs have a way of blaming Israel for their own faults, so it isn't clear they would destroy Hamas. He knows that waiting lets Israeli towns be bombed, more as enemy rockets improve. I see Hamas as part of the ring of missile forces around Israel, soon if not already capable of destroying Israel. I think that Israel must remove each of those enemies, Hamas, Hizbullah, Syria, and perhaps more, the harsher, the better. Otherwise, one day, a hundred thousand missiles will start to descend upon Israel and end its existence within a week. The cost of invasion is not just an extra cost, as the casualties, destruction, and demoralization from the constant and growing bombardment takes its toll. But the general has defined invasion poorly. He assumes one insufficient to root out terrorism. That may be what Olmert wants to do, but invasion should be all-out. ARAB NEWS ON OIL PRICES Arab News claims that S. Arabia increased oil output significantly. New oil fields are announced in Brazil, Ghana, and Greenland, but only interruptions in oil delivery as from storms or ruptured pipelines affect the price. Inventories pile up, but the market does not respond to supply-and-demand. Hedge funds have turned to oil, and keep bidding the price up (IMRA, 6/11). Our president and the candidates are silent about the cause of rising prices. The NY Sun, however, finds no energy gain from corn-based ethanol and a waste of resources. It notes that the US has tremendous reserves it refuses to tap, in the West and offshore (6/11). When we devise a plan for conservation, I would want to develop those reserves, except where they would ruin the environment. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear regularly in 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 |
|
SAUDI MARRIAGE OFFICIANT: 'MARRY GIRLS OFF AT AGE 1 BUT WAIT UNTIL THEY'RE 9 TO HAVE SEX'
Posted by HaDaR, June 25, 2008. |
|
This is the demonstration that numbers, truth, sanity or quality don't go necessarily together... Just like a friend's 12 year old son told me recently: "There are billions of flies who eat sh.. and think it's the best; that doesn't mean that they are right because they are more than we are, or that it's the best food, or that we should do the same" Whoever says that it must not be a war against Islam, that it is not a war of civilizations, is full of it and leads the civilised word to disaster and bloodshed through a typical "ostrich" policy, since on the other side they have been preparing their revenge and their re-conquest for a very long time (just watch their TVs filled with programs on Salah Din EVERY DAY!) It is absolutely not a racial issue. Political or national issues are not the problem. Islam, their religion, their culture is the issue! This comes from Carl in Jerusalem's website:
|
|
Following are excerpts from an interview with Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu'bi, a Saudi marriage officiant, which aired on LBC TV on June 19, 2008:
Let's go to the videotape. A transcript follows.
TRANSCRIPT: Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu'bi: Marriage is actually two things: First we are talking about the marriage contract itself. This is one thing, while consummating the marriage –– having sex with the wife for the first time –– is another thing. There is no minimal age for entering marriage. You can have a marriage contract even with a one-year-old girl, not to mention a girl of nine, seven, or eight. This is merely a contract [indicating] consent. The guardian in such a case must be the father, because the father's opinion is obligatory. Thus, the girl becomes a wife... But is the girl ready for sex or not? What is the appropriate age for having sex for the first time? This varies according to environment and traditions. In Yemen, girls are married off at nine, ten, eleven, eight, or thirteen, while in other countries, they are married off at 16. Some countries have legislated laws forbidding having sex before the girl is eighteen. And having sex with a 9-year old girl is 'normal?' You've got to be kidding.
HaDaR can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net.
|
|
WHAT IS SHARIAH LAW?
Posted by Center for Security Policy, June 25, 2008. |
|
This comes from the July 25, 2008 Newsletter from Center for Security Policy. Contact them at shariah@centerforsecuritypolicy.org |
|
Understanding Shariah law is integral to understanding the dangers of Shariah-compliant finance. Shariah law is Islamic law dating back to the 9th century and is today the law of the land in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan and the law under which the Taliban operates. Recent polls reveal that only 10-15% of Muslims worldwide want to live under this all-encompassing system of Islamic jurisprudence that covers all aspects of a Muslim's life including religious, social, political, and military obligations. However, with a current population of 1.5 billion Muslims, this translates to a huge pool of Jihadist recruits and supporters –– a base of approximately 150 –– 225 million Muslims. Shariah law authorities, some of whom are now being paid handsomely by Barclays, Dow Jones, Standard & Poors, HSBC, Citibank, Merrill Lynch, Deutschebank, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, UBS, Credit Suisse and others have the power to dictate Shariah compliance as deemed by "scholarly consensus" on matters of finance, family, penal law, apostasy, and war. Examples of authoritarian Shariah law include: requirement of women to obtain permission from husbands for daily freedoms; beating of disobedient woman and girls; execution of homosexuals; engagement of polygamy and forced child marriages; the testimony of four male witnesses to prove rape; honor killings of those, principally women, who have dishonored the family; death to apostate Muslims who chose to leave Islam; inferior status of non-Muslims, and capital punishment for those "slander Islam." |
|
SARKOZY AND LAND FOR PEACE
Posted by Steven Plaut, June 24, 2008. |
|
Well, Sarkozy was in Jerusalem this week, and standing before the Knesset he called for Israel to agree to have Jerusalem divided, with half turned over to the savages. He also called for ethnic cleansing of the Jews living in the West Bank These French politicians have long believed that peace could be created by turning Israel into a sort of Vichy appeasement regime. But now that they want to purchase peace with land, they may be on to something important. Never one to back down from a challenge, I have prepared a set of proposals for consideration by the French people, so they too can achieve a full, lasting, and just peace with their historic opponents. First, we all agree that territory must not be annexed by force. Therefore, we can also agree that Germany has a moral right to demand the return of Alsace-Lorraine, for the French aggression in 1945 and its consequent occupation must not be rewarded. "A full withdrawal for full peace" should operate here. Further, France must agree to the return and rehabilitation of all ethnic Germans expelled from Alsace-Lorraine after World Wars I and II, as well as all those they define as their descendents. But this, of course, is just the first step toward a solution, as no aggression can be rewarded and France has much other stolen territory to return. It took Corsica from Genoa, Nice and Savoy from Piedmont; as the successor state, Italy must get back all these lands. By similar token, territories grabbed from the Habsburgs go back to Austria, including Franche-Comt., Artois, and historic Burgundy. The Roussillon area (along the Pyrenees) must be returned to Spain, its rightful owner. And Normandy, Anjou, Aquitaine, and Gascony must be returned to their rightful owners, the British royal family. Not even this not enough for the sake of peace. Brittany and Languedoc must be granted autonomy at once, recognizing the Breton and Occitan Liberation organizations as their legal rulers. This leaves the French government in control over the Ile de France. That, however, still does not solve the problem of the Holy City of Paris, sacred to artists, gourmets, and adulterers. The Corsicans obviously have a historic claim to the Tomb of the Emperor Napoleon, their famed son, as well as the Invalides complex and beyond. For the sake of peace, is it not too much to ask that Paris be the capital for two peoples? The French authorities must agree to prevent French Parisians from even entering the sacred tomb area, lest this upset the Corsicans. The Saint Chapelle and the Church of Notre Dame of course will be internationalized, under joint Vatican-art historical auspices. Indeed, the French should consider it a compliment of the highest order that so many people see Paris as an international city. The French have nothing to complain of. They will enjoy the benefits of peace and retain control of the Champs Elysees. Actually, come to think of it, even the Champs Elysees may be too much. Recalling the French position that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, perhaps the true French capital is not Paris at all, but Vichy. 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. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. Or write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il |
|
NOAM SHALIT TO OLMERT: 'YOUR UNBELIEVABLE WORTHLESSNESS'
Posted by Avodah, June 24, 2008. |
|
This is a news item from Arutz-7
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/148790 |
|
(IsraelNN.com) The father of kidnapped IDF Cpl. Gilad Shalit told demonstrators at a rally in Jerusalem outside the Prime Minister's Residence Sunday night that Ehud Olmert is delaying his son's release from captivity by Hamas terrorists. "Mr. Prime Minister, you had two whole years for negotiators, for bargaining, for checking options, even for talking to Hamas," said the elder Shalit. "With your unbelievable worthlessness you failed to work for my son's release. Now is the time for a decision," he declared Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com |
|
THEY'RE DICTATORS AND TERRORISTS BUT WHAT CLEAN STREETS!
Posted by Barry Rubin, June 24, 2008. |
|
Hamas celebrated its first anniversary of power in the Gaza Strip amidst massive misinterpretations regarding the situation there. Ironically, Hamas's victory and survival has less to do with Israel than the rotten strategy of Yasir Arafat. He ruled the Palestinian movement for 35 years by establishing a weak, anarchic, corrupt, and factionalized structure which he played like a violen. After Arafat's death, Fatah paid the price by collapsing in the Gaza Strip, first electorally then militarily. Having proved a failure in government, Fatah then showed itself a failure as an opposition. Hamas's power rests repression, radical ideology, international protection and an incompetent enemy. A Palestinian storeowner told an American reporter, "What can we do? Hamas is even stronger than a year ago. They can take me and put me away whenever they want." This is the kind of situation which elsewhere makes the West, especially the left, sneer at dictatorships that –– as was once said of Italian fascist Benito Mussolini –– take away freedom but take credit for making the trains run on time. Yet while the world prevents Israel from defeating Hamas through military action and very tight sanctions, Fatah is its own worst enemy in combating Hamas. President George Bush recently stated that a Fatah-ruled Palestinian state should be quickly developed since, "It will serve as an alternative vision to what is happening in Gaza." This is rubbish. No matter how much money the West pumps in, the nationalists are not going to offer an attractive regime. Fatah's lower level of still-considerable repression is counterbalanced by the corruption and anarchy included in the package. Jawad Tibi, a former Fatah cabinet minister, explained, "Hamas is Fatah with beards." True and that lack of differentiation is the problem. Moreover, Fatah continues its own old tricks. When it does arrest those involved in terrorism, they are quickly released. Incitement to commit violence continues on the Palestinian Authority (PA) media, and the PA is far more eager to reconcile with Hamas than to make peace with Israel. Yes, the PA's survival is a U.S., Western, and Israeli interest but let's not get sentimental or naïve about these weak, corrupt, and largely radical allies of necessity. As for Hamas, it possesses three key weapons.
* The mainstream appeal of extremism and terrorism. "Hamas is strong and brutal but very good at governing," Eyad Sarraj told the New York Times, which describes him as a British-trained psychiatrist and secular opponent of Hamas, After all, he continues, it's distributing gas coupons, getting people to pay electricity bills, and keeping the city clean. This is a very silly evaluation, reminding me of an American high school textbook which said Israel should try this idea and if that didn't work we would all know better. Finally, there's the strange conclusion that since Hamas isn't about to fall from power, this proves sanctions have failed. One could say it shows economic and military pressures should be raised further. But at least it should be understood that the sanctions' purpose is to make Hamas less able to kill even more people, take over the West Bank, damage Israel, or turn Gaza into –– to stand Bush's view on its head –– an "attractive alternative." Any policy that prevents those things seems pretty valid; any Westerner favoring a strategy that strengthens Hamas should be forced to live under its rule. 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 |
|
OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE A FAKE?
Posted by Yid With Lid, June 24, 2008. | |
|
There is evidence that the Barack Obama birth certificate provided by Senator Obama's campaign and the Daily Kos is a fraud. Israelinsider has compared the Obama-issued birth certificate to an authentic Hawaiian birth certificate for another Hawaiian individual (see below) The authentic one includes an embossed official seal and an authoritative signature –– features that Obama's alleged certificate lack, as well as a certificate number referencing the birth year that was blacked out in the image claimed as genuine by Obama's campaign. According to Hawaiian authorities, authentic certificates are printed and sent by mail: there are no electronic-only copies. The issue go way beyond whether Obama is a legitimate citizen or not. Because if Senator Obama II fails to provide proof of his "natural born" American citizenship verifiable documents, he will be setting the stage for a very public battle over his credibility, the basic legitimacy of his candidacy, and its possible criminality, a legal, and political battle that America does not need right now: The article below is entitled
"Analysis: Faked birth certificate suggests Obama may not be US citizen"
and was written by Rueven Koret. It appeared today on
Israel Insider
[Editor's Note: As an aside, in the summer of 2006 during the Second Lebanon War, Reuven Koret was one of the first to denounce the Qana "Massacre" as a hoax –– and was proven right.] | |
|
The "birth certificate" claimed by the Barack Obama campaign is not certified as authentic and appears to be a photoshopped fake. The image, purporting to come from the Hawaii Department of Health, has been the subject of intense skepticism in the blogosphere in the past two weeks. But now the senior spokesman of that Department has confirmed to Israel Insider what are the required features of a certified birth document –– features that Obama's purported "birth certificate" clearly lack. The image became increasingly suspect with Israel Insider's
revelation that variations of the certificate image were posted on the
Photobucket image aggregation
That strongly suggests that Daily Kos obtained the image from Photobucket, not the State of Hawaii, the Obama family, or the Obama campaign. Photobucket is not generally known as a credible supplier of official vital records for any of the fifty states, and the liberties that other Photoshoppers took with the certificates confirms this. Some of these oddities surfaced in Israel Insider's previous article on the subject [sraelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12932.htm], but new comparative documentary evidence presented below, and official verification obtained by Israel Insider from a senior Hawaiian official, provides the strongest confirmation yet. An authentic Hawaiian birth certificate for another Hawaiian individual has since surfaced which, using the same official form as the presumptive Obama certificate, includes an embossed official seal and an authoritative signature, coming through from the back. Obama's alleged certificate lacks those features, and the certificate number referencing the birth year has been blacked out, making it untraceable. Janice Okubo, Director of Communications of the State of Hawaii Department of Health, told Israel Insider: "At this time there are no circumstances in which the State of Hawaii Department of Health would issue a birth certification or certification of live birth only electronically." And, she added, "In the State of Hawaii all certified copies of certificates of live birth have the embossed seal and registrar signature on the back of the document." Compare the top image presented by his campaign as evidence of Obama's 1961 birth and the other certifying the birth of one Patricia Decosta.
So if he were registered as being born in Hawaii, Barack Obama –– because only he or another member of his immediate family could by law request a "Certification of Live Birth" –– must have a certified paper copy, with embossed stamp and seal, or he could request one. But what his campaign has put forward as genuine, according to the senior spokesman in the relevant department of the State of Hawaii, is not in fact a certified copy. It is not valid. Whereas the uncertified Obama document provides the date "filed by registrar", the certified DeCosta document provides the date "accepted by the registrar." The difference between filing an application for a Certification of Live Birth and having it accepted may be key here. The Obama campaign, however, continues to flaunt the unstamped, unsealed, uncertified document –– notably in very low resolution –– on its "Fight the Smears" website, with campaign officials vowing that it's authentic, sending the image around as "proof" to reporters, and inviting supporters to refer to it as they battle against supposed distortions and calumnies against their candidate. However, the campaign refuses to produce an authentic original birth certificate from the year of Obama's birth, or even a paper version with seal and signature of the "Certification of Live Birth." Nor has it even published an electronic copy with the requisite embossed seal and signature. The failure of the Obama campaign to do so, and its willingness instead to put up an invalid, uncertified image –– what now appears to be a crude forgery –– raises the dramatic question of why the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate might have to hide. Until now, it has been thought that there might be some embarrassing information on the real certificate: was the candidate's name something other than Barack Hussein Obama II, as it is claimed? Was no father listed because of the uncertainty over Obama's paternity? Was his father's race listed as Arab, or Muslim, rather than African? These revelations might be embarrassing, and further undermine his credibility, but he could disavow and downplay their significance. Would revealing such embarrassment outweigh the far greater risks involved in perpetuating a palpable forgery, or passing off an uncertified official document as being certified? There is one possibility, however, which alone might justify the risk that Obama and his campaign seems to be taking in putting forward the uncertified document image: Obama was not in fact born in Hawaii and may not be an American citizen at all, or at least not a "natural born citizen" as the Constitution defines the requirement for the nation's chief executive. Real original birth certificates, circa 1961, have all kinds of verifiable information that would confirm Obama's origins, or throw them into doubt should they be lacking. Research has since uncovered the law, in force at the time of Obama's birth, that were he to have been born in another country, his young American mother's youth extended time abroad would not suffice to make him a "natural born citizen." Even if he were naturalized later –– and there is no evidence that he was –– he would not be eligible to run for the office of president and –– if forgery or misrepresentation were involved –– he and his staffers might find themselves facing stiff federal and state charges. But if, at this late date, Obama has no proof of being a US citizen by law, natural born or otherwise, then he or his advisers may be tempted to try to "tough out" the allegations about his "birth certificate" or the lack thereof. He and his campaign have gotten through other embarrassments: maybe this one will go away, too. Because the consequences were he to admit, or should it come out, that he was not born in Hawaii would be so grave as to make it tempting to take the gamble and hope that no one dares call his most audacious bluff by demanding proof. Talk about the audacity of hope. But now the State of Hawaii has dashed those hopes by clarifying that a certified birth certificate must have an embossed seal and signature, features his claimed birth certificate image lack. The longer Obama waits, the graver grow the consequences of waiting. There is one simple way for the candidate to clear up the issue once and for all: produce for public inspection and objective analysis the paper copy of his original Hawaiian birth certificate –– if one exists. If he's lost the original, he can request a certified copy. Ordinary citizens are required to produce one to get a passport or a driver's license. Surely it's not too much to ask from a man who aspires to hold the highest office in the land. The issue is not whether Obama is black or white, Christian or Muslim. It is whether he was born in the USA and thus a citizen eligible according to the Constitution to run for President. If proof of citizenship does not exist, then surely it would be wiser to admit it now. Because if Barack Hussein Obama II does not produce definitive proof of his "natural born" American citizenship with original, verifiable documents, he will be setting the stage for a very public battle over his personal credibility, the basic legitimacy of his candidacy, and its possible criminality. UPDATE 6/26: Janice Okubo, in response to an Israeli Insider question on Tuesday, would not confirm nor deny whether she had told a St. Petersburg Times reporter whether she had said the birth certificate was "real", citing the statutory stipulation that "Hawaii state law (HRS §338-18) prevents disclosure of information contained in vital statistics records except to those people who have a direct and tangible interest in the record as defined by statute." This would, however, seem to negate the propriety of any disclosure by her of confidential information. Jim Geraghty of The National Review Online, following up on this
Israel Insider report, said he had contacted Okubo
"I spoke to Ms. Okubo late Wednesday afternoon, and she said she had seen the version of Obama's certificate of live birth posted on the sites. While her office cannot verify the information on a form without the permission of the certificate holder (Obama), she said "the form is exactly the same" and it has 'all the components of a birth certificate' record issued by the state. In other words, she sees no reason to think the version posted on Obama's web site and Daily Kos is not genuine." Geraghty's interpretation of Okubo's comments is inexact and tendentious. First, her observation that "the form is the same" is not contested, here or elsewhere. No one is doubting that the form that appears on the various websites (including this one) is a replica of that used for valid certificates. Therefore Geraght's interpretation that follows "In other words" is clearly his own conclusion, not hers. Indeed, Okubo confirms to Geraghty that the image is lacking the "embossed seal" (and the official signature) that are required for the certificate to be valid. While "she thinks" that the difference in visibility might be attributed to varying "pressure," she admits that she does not know and has not seen the original. Contrasting the purported Obama image with the DeCosta sample, it is hard to imagine the embossed seal and signature being of such light pressure that they would become completely invisible. An inked date of June 6, 2007, in reverse, does come through. But in any event, Okubo's confirmation that the premsumptive birth certificate is lacking the required stamps makes it all the more imperative for Obama to release the original paper certification, the only valid kind, and not an easy-to-photoshop electronic facsimile thereof. It should not be hard to produce, since Hawaii provides for family members to request them. Even though Geraghy notes that Obama "initially refused to provide his birth certificate," he has suggested that it is "rather unlikely" that Obama was born in Kenya, since it would require that the candidate and his family do a lot of lying. In fact, there were reports of Kenyati relatives claiming he was born there, and there is the mysterious disappearance of his grandmother, who may indeed know something about this subject. After all, being born in Hawaii is part of the "family legend" and it would be unreasonable to expect this to vary from interview to interview, especially when a non-Hawaiian birth would invalidate Obama's run for the presidency. It is indeed hard to believe that Obama could have gone through his life without having to prove that he was an American citizen. But the credulity with which the mainstream media has automatically accepted as valid the image that appears on the radical left Daily Kos blog and on the Obama campaign's polemical "Fight the Smears" website makes it clear that many have been unwilling, now and in the past, to demand proof of an authentic document. They prefer to accept on faith that the candidate or his campaign would not lie about such a thing, assuming he has nothing to hide and no motive to lie. But until the certified paper birth document is produced –– either by media pressure or a legal challenge in any state –– the fact remains that Obama has not proven that he is a "natural born citizen" eligible to be President according to the Constitution.
The Yid With Lid "explores themes of Political relativity." This
appeared today and is archived at
|
|
BEWARE ISRAEL'S "FRIENDS"!; UNDEMOCRATIC IRAQ AND TURKEY; ISRAEL PURSUES STRATEGIC DEFEAT
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 24, 2008. |
|
WHAT IS CONDITION OF IRAQ'S OIL INDUSTRY? The NY Times editorialized against the suspicious appearance of no-bid contracts that Iraq is signing with US oil companies to refurbish the industry there. Are the contracts corrupt? Why does Iraq's oil industry need rehabilitation? "Years of UN sanctions and war." Not war, but Islamist sabotage (Sunday Opinion, 6/22). Sanctions didn't do it as much as Saddam's spending on pals and palaces. The editorial forgot that Saddam had let the industry run down even before sanctions. MEANING OF "LULL?" The IDF issued new standing orders to its troops. Unless fired upon, or they have good intelligence that armed Arab militiamen at the border intend to attack, the Israeli troops are not to fire upon them (IMRA, 6/23). The trouble with that is that the militiamen are likely planning trouble, such as planting roadside bombs. Further trouble is that Israel adheres to its truces but the Arabs don't. Until the Arabs learn to keep their word, it doesn't pay to make truces with them. Truces are no good anyway. They don't resolve anything and are a Muslim tactic for gaining a breathing spell. My reading of military history taught me that when one has enemy forces on the run, keep in pursuit and annihilate them. Otherwise, it gets harder, later. ISRAEL'S NEW "FRIEND" Pres. Sarkozy assured the Knesset that France always will be Israel's friend, will protect Israel, and is a country in which Jews are safe. Then he urged Israel to expel the Jews from Judea-Samaria and divide Jerusalem (Arutz-7, 6/23). The "Jerusalem Post" called Sarkozy Israel's best French President in decades (NY Sun, 6/23, p.6), the way Clinton and Bush were called the best US Presidents for Israel. All three work to dismember Israel. Jews are not safe in France. Its Jews often are attacked, usually by Muslims. The growing Muslim population in France talks about taking over from the French of declining birth rate. Apparently he wants to take Israel down with France. One French President cannot sincerely promise that his successors won't become like DeGaulle, and turn on Israel. Take Sarkozy, for example. He already has turned on Israel. No friend of Israel suggests an ethnic cleansing of Jews from the cradle of Jewish civilization and dividing its capital that never was an Arab capital. Rather than make peace, as Sarkozy said it would, it strengthens the jihadists, as some of his Knesset critics said it would. Sarkozy is for appeasement, which France should know doesn't work. He talks strong but proposes weakness. He's not much different from Israel's enemies His statement, I think, is the result of having a supposed Jewish state, supposed, because it doesn't protect its Jews or Judaism much. If there were no Israel, these foreign politicians wouldn't pretend to be a friend of the Jews. TURKEY FOLLOWING RUSSIA INTO DICTATORSHIP The US finally acknowledged that Putin is a dictator. Turkey's Islamist President does much of what Putin did. He won power during an economic crisis in which the regime's corruption and incompetence cost it popularity. In office, he devoted himself to accumulating power by overcoming constitutional restraints and undermining the secular nature of the state. He is breaking campaign promises and increasingly shattering the impression he had given of being moderate. Turkey's Supreme Court overturned his law allowing head scarves to be worn on campus. Some US commentators called the ruling undemocratic. Actually, the Supreme Court is the Constitution's guardian (Michael Rubin, MEFNews, 6/7). So is the Turkish Army, but the West tells it to stay out of constitutional issues, even though they would keep Islamists from destroying the Constitution. US officials have too much to say for the little they know. They see foreign countries from an American perspective (but not always from American needs). The same situation abroad has a different meanings there. Take head scarves. From an American perspective, it doesn't matter what kind of hat someone wears. In a country that Islamists are striving to take over, it does matter. Identifying people helps segregate them and intimidate some. It is part of the Islamist means of gaining dominance. WARNING AGAINST ATTACK ON IRAN An Iranian official said that just by mentioning a possible US or Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, an Israeli caused the price of oil to jump by $11 a barrel. War news does that. He said that if Iran actually were attacked, the price would soar until it caused a world depression, and Muslims would rise up against the US, including in Iraq (IMRA, 6/7). But the US would lack the oil to wage war. If Muslims have such solidarity, they reject infidels' right to defend themselves from Islamist aggression. Muslims do tend towards religious chauvinism. Let this be a warning. The US ought to ascertain the cause of the oil price increases, so it might counter them. Difficult to do when the administration encourages consumption and candidates do not try to discourage it and don't study it. UNDEMOCRATIC IRAQ Iraq offers voters parties whose slate is picked by bosses, who may be sectarian. Candidates play up to the bosses. This is divisive rather than democratic (Scott Carpenter & Barry Rubin, MEF News, 6/9). That's Israel's system! Now Iraq's system must be reformed. Else, Bush will have failed to democratize it. GOVERNMENT RESULTS VS. STATED INTENT Some abandoned properties contain too much toxic material for developers to afford the clean-up. In stepped New York State. It arranged subsidies for redevelopment. Unfortunately, its rules allow most of the money to go to large-scale developers of properties with lower costs of clean-up. The legislature has suspended the program so it can figure out how to correct it (NY Sun, 6/10). That's the way government often does things. Lobbyists and legislators distort the stated intent of legislation. TERRORISM SETBACK The NY Times is reporting what I had, half a year ago, that anti-terrorist efforts in southern Asia are working. Indonesia has a more conciliatory approach, the Philippines a more military one. Both countries have ground terrorist forces down to a fraction. Muslims seeking independence for Mindanao claim they are not terrorist and should be treated differently. The news brief stresses that the gains may be transient. The US has helped those countries greatly (6/9, A1). Just as the governments adjust techniques to fit their situations, so, too, terrorists may adjust their techniques. Until they are down, they are not out. The NY Sun, being fairer, has editorials in which it welcomes what it considers progress in those it usually criticizes. Thus the Sun editorial welcomed candidate Obama's appointment as an economic advisor an upholder of Walmart, which the newspaper considers an important source of savings for consumers and jobs for workers. (It puts rivals out of work, though.) The Times, whose editorials constantly berate Pres. Bush for mistakes in Iraq, should have had an editorial praising the effective US help to Indonesia and the Philippines against terrorism. I found another difference between the two newspapers on 6/10. The Times presented Obama's economic policies (and his many misrepresentations of McCain's). The Sun noted that Obama declared himself a partisan of free trade, though during the primary, he warned that he would pull out of the N. American Free Trade Agreement, unless it restricted trade more. He was appealing to the same industrial workers or unemployed as Clinton, in falsely blaming their loss of jobs on NAFTA, although the US car industry (management and unions) made its own troubles. Then a protectionist, now a free trader? Sounds like his usual zig-zagging. In my opinion, McCain is not fully correct, knowledgeable, or honest, but Obama is mostly incorrect, ignorant, and dishonest. He is slicker than Bill Clinton. HAMAS POPULARITY DECLINES, SINCE NO CEASEFIRE A poll found that Abbas gained a modest increase in popularity at Hamas' expense. Part of the reason is that Hamas was unable to make a ceasefire with Israel (IMRA, 6/9). But Israel will give it that ceasefire! See next section. OLMERT/LIVNI/BARAK MOVE TO STRATEGIC DEFEAT After the UNO determined ceasefire lines in Lebanon, the Olmert regime launched a hastily set up ground offensive it knew would not have time to affect the pre-determined outcome. Israelis got killed so their rulers could pretend to have shown initiative in the war. The ceasefire allowed Hizbullah to rebuild and become stronger than before the war. That was a strategic failure for Israel (and for the US), now threatened by Hizbullah. Reinforcing Hizbullah's status, Israel has been arranging a prisoner exchange with it that favors it. Next, Israel is negotiating a land-cession deal with Syria. All this confirms Hizbullah's dominance in Lebanon and vindicates Syria's alliance with Iran. Now the Olmert regime intends a modest invasion of Gaza, not enough to destroy Hamas, but enough to pretend to have forced Hamas to accept a ceasefire. Olmert probably hopes a ceasefire would divert attention from casualties from Hamas rockets at a time when he is being investigated for corruption. He will get more Israelis killed for nothing. The Leftist media would refrain from saying so, because he is a leftist. The small opposition media would refrain from pointing that out, lest it be accused of undermining troop morale. The deal would allow Hamas access to Egypt's border and a port if not also an airport. That means heavy weaponry for Hamas, a proxy army of Iran. It also would help Hamas take over Judea-Samaria (Caroline Glick in IMRA, 6/9). Hamas and Syria would be able to threaten Israel, same as Hizbullah. I'm not sure how Ms. Glick means this would help Hamas in Judea-Samaria, but it would give Hamas more prestige. Odd that the US doesn't object about letting Hamas have more prestige, when it keeps demanding that Israel reduce its anti-terrorism in Judea-Samaria, in order to give Abbas more prestige over Hamas. It is odd, until you realize that the US sacrifices its own interest in stopping anti-Western jihadists so long as those jihadists help bring down Israel. I think that the Right should criticize a small invasion as futile, but they should start doing so before the invasion. Unfortunately, there isn't much of a Right and not much media freedom. I don't count Netanyahu as on the right. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear regularly in 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 |
|
AIPAC AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE
Posted by Rob Muchnick, June 24, 2008. |
|
On the website of AIPAC –– the chief pro-Israel lobbying organization in the US –– there is an article discussing the importance to the Jewish People of the liberation of the Temple Mount during the Six-Day War. Yet at AIPAC's last 7600-person annual convention in Washington, DC, the only mention of Jerusalem Day was provided by the five-person Manhigut Yehudit delegation. Was it just an oversight? Of course not. The folks who produced this multi-million dollar "show" do not make such mistakes. They could not celebrate the liberation and re-unification of Jerusalem as that would be a direct slap in the face of fellow conference attendee –– and Israeli Prime Minister –– Ehud Olmert, who is actively trying to re-divide Jerusalem and give it and the Temple Mount to Mahmoud Abbas ... Let's be honest, dear readers, the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish People as an eternal inheritance from our Maker. As the socialist David Ben-Gurion even said (when the socialists were still true Zionists) –– "no Jew has the right to give any of it away". Let me add that no Jew can give any of it away –– even to a real "man of peace". At AIPAC's show, Olmert, McCain, Obama, Hillary, Rice, the AIPAC leaders, and all of the other notable speakers went on and on about how Mahmoud Abbas is so truly interested in peace, and how Israel must grant him a viable and contiguous state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. All of these so-called friends of Israel of course gave lip-service to the fact that Israel must have "secure borders", but they so easily glossed over the fact that by granting Abbas these terms Israel will be cut in half and militarily indefensible –– not to mention it would lose its eternal, spiritual heart ... It is a mark of shame for AIPAC that they have created such a tremendous tool, which could be used to benefit the Jewish People, but now it serves only the interests of the corrupt Oslo Gang, which would gladly see Israel destroyed before it relinquishes power. (Jews used to be revered by others as "the Book People"; Romans feared us and renamed Judea and Samaria in order to eradicate us from their version of history by calling them Palestine. If we are serious about ending Islamic terror in Israel, achieving unity of Jewish people and reuniting all Jewish land, regaining self-respect is the first priority! This policy of appeasement and self-hate must end!) Rob Muchnick is a member of Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership), which is a group of people inside the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character. Moshe Feiglin, its cofounder, has emphatically said he does not want a theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The Manhigut Yehudit website address is http://www.manhigut.org. To learn more about Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) and to read their plan for Israel's future, visit www.jewishisrael.org. Or contact Shmuel Sackett, International Director (516) 330-4922 (cell) |
|
ARABS RETURN BONES AND "BODY PARTS" OF ISRAELIS; DEFEND YOURSELVES!
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, June 24, 2008. |
|
ARABS RETURN BONES AND "BODY PARTS" OF ISRAELIS When I read the reports out of the Leftist-dominated Media (especially in Israel), they bend, twist and otherwise warp the news –– as if returning the bones and "body parts" of dead Israeli soldiers was such a 'wonderful humanitarian gesture'. Don't they know that captured Israelis are generally first tortured and later murdered but buried in a known location so the Muslims can later dig up "body parts" to trade for convicted Arab Terrorists in prison? Why is it that Arab Muslims believe that one Jewish hostage is worth 400-1000 Muslim Arab inmates in prisoner swap –– including those Arabs with Jewish blood on their hands? Is it because they know Jews value their people far more than Arabs do their own? Being taken prisoner by Hezb'Allah, Hamas, Al Aksa, Syria, Iran, etc. is a deadly experience. They honor no international laws according their prisoners humane treatment but, they screech, howl and demand that all international humanitarian laws be applied to prisoners held by Israel. The Muslims who have migrated to Europe and America take advantage of the benevolent laws in these nations to preach hatred and fund Terror. In America and Europe Muslims demand full compliance with international law on prisoners who have ignored all law in their grisly acts of murder. They use the laws of civilized nations to commit murder by atrocity and to penetrate that society with the full intent of subverting it. Muslim Arabs have proven themselves to be a cruel and vicious lot when it come to treating their prisoners with any sense of humanity. They count on Leftist Pacifists to come to their aid, making them dupes and co-conspirators to "Jihad" (aka murder in the name of Islam). Syria, for example, used to cut off the testicles of live Israeli prisoners and stuff them into the mouths of their screaming prisoners before they slit their throats or beheaded them with a dull knife –– as happened with Daniel Pearl and Nicholas Berg. Yassir Arafat used to tie his prisoners (Jews, Christians or Muslims) to four cars and pull his victims apart –– like the Romans who thought drawing and quartering was an entertaining spectacle for the masses. Yes, indeed, throughout their history Muslim Arabs have behaved as a savage, cruel species who represent the worst of the human race. During Arafat's 12 year war in Lebanon (1970 to 1982), Arafat's Palestinians used Christians as a live blood supply for his wounded Palestinians. When the Israelis drove Arafat and his Palestinians out of Lebanon, they found prisoners stacked up like cordwood in the hospitals –– totally drained of their blood. Human sacrifice from their earliest times was part of the culture of those who today are called "Arabs" and "Muslims". Granted Egypt and Iran do not consider themselves as Arabs but most of them are Muslims. In fact, the term "Aryan" is derived from the same root as "Iran". When Israel trades hundreds of Muslim Arab prisoners who were caught (often at great risk to Israeli Jewish soldiers), tried and convicted for their crimes, they simply go back to their trade of Terror through murder in the most hideous ways conceivable. Israel gets back bones and "body parts" but the released Terrorists return to generate more Jewish bones and "body parts". To lie to an "infidel" (non-Muslim) in order to later entrap and kill is their way of life as permitted within Koranic law. When you hear a Muslim speak of the "peaceful" character of Islam, he really believes what he is saying. But, Islam doesn't mean "peace"; Islam means "Submission". The "peace" a Muslim is speaking about is when Islam is the dominant religion and he is enjoying the fruits of "peace" (meaning control) under Sharia law. Islam's victims are not so fortunate. The history of Islam from Mohammed in the 7th Century onward, speaks of a non-productive people who raid, pillage, rape, enslave, murder and live on the production of the peoples they conquered with the sword. When that is used up, they move on to other victims with the doctrine that they are entitled to be served by others in deference to their superiority of Islam under Allah. I suppose historians can speak of the bestial cruelty of other nations and religions who conquered, looted and slaughtered. But, somehow, that society encompassed by Islam never gave up its ways of unspeakable cruelty. Now it is 2008 and the Muslims glorify their sacrifice of humans, be it their victims or even themselves or their own children in suicide missions where the Mullahs promise an immediate trip to Allah's Courtyard, that is "Warriors' Heaven" –– with 72 virgins and rivers of honey. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, current President of Iran, brags that he will destroy the nation of Israel and then conquer Europe and America to enslave the people in a Global Caliphate under Islam's Sharia law. Blowing up "infidels" with nuclear weapons or simply using poison gas in subways is normative and acceptable to radical "Islamists". When a particularly grisly Terror attack is successful, those "peaceful" Muslims give out candy and shoot off their guns as they celebrate their delight. Remember the TV scenes of the Muslim Arabs celebrating in Gaza after 9/11? If not, that's because the videos were censored very quickly and pulled from view. Muslims can be nice, friendly sweet people when they are in the minority in another's land. But, as soon as they gain "critical mass" (like a nuclear bomb before it explodes) then they begin to push violently for dominance. It is encoded in their religion and no amount of friendly Western appeasement will change that. I suspect that soon the West, in its Judeo-Christian tradition will get fed up and drive the Muslims back to their lands where they can practice their religion as the Mullahs so order. However, in the meantime, until we Westerners smarten up to the threats and stakes of NOT combating this for our very lives, we are in harm's way and at great risk to losing everything we hold dear: our families, our lives, our homes, our lands. So......
DEFEND YOURSELVES! It's long past time for the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) and all the people to get back to the critical business of defending themselves and the nation. Delete the weak, corrupt government that floated to the surface because they are not any part of the people. Those (except for some) came to the Government, not as patriots, but because of their greed for power, privilege and money....always the money. Our enemies have grown in strength, both in numbers, arms, training and feeling free to kill Jews with impunity. There are no punishments that the Israeli government enacts against murderers which cannot be reversed. Murdering Terrorists may be convicted, jailed and fed well for years but, they can always depend upon being released to kill again by a Left Liberal weak, corrupt government. They are even afforded excellent education while in jail from fellow Terrorist inmates to "improve" their killing techniques. If ever they were innocent, peace-living civilians, that time has long since past. Unlike the Israeli Leftists, the Muslim Arab Palestinians who aren't currently engaged in Terror, are fully supportive of the Terrorists who bomb, shoot rockets and kill Jews. They shield them (willingly or not), allow them to hide –– using their women and children as "human shields". In school, summer camp and on TV, they educate their children to grow up into Terrorists, and give them refuge after their Terror actions. To this, the so-called "ordinary Palestinian" people are pledged –– whether as a people or as Muslim "Jihadist" operatives. The Israeli government has proven itself to be not only useless in these perilous times but they have cravenly become allies and enablers to our most fearsome self-declared enemies. As I said before, they are useless to the point of being traitors. They eagerly offer up the Land and her people as if they were human sacrifices. If time permitted, they should be indicted, tried and (if convicted) hung as traitors. But, there is no time and the fight is with Muslim Arabs –– be they so-called "Palestinians", Syrians, Iranian, Egyptians, Lebanese, Saudis, if or when they attack. Doubtless, there will soon be a saturation missile attack coming from Hamas, Hezb'Allah, Syria and/or Iran. The so-called Israeli Arabs have 10 or 11 Members sitting in the Knesset, voting the Jewish State out of existence. Would any of the above mentioned nations allow a Jew to sit in their government? I think not. The Israeli Arabs will do as much damage as they can once the neighboring hostile states and their Terrorist proxies launch the next assault which ties up the IDF on Israel's borders. Those capable Israeli civilians, especially those who have been in the IDF and had military training, must be armed and trained to defend their local communities. They should resume the civil defense patrols. The fence that Israel is building is not sufficient to keep the Terrorists out of the civilian communities. The settlements in Judea and Samaria must be militarily strengthened with defensive arms, able to hold off rampaging hordes of Arab Muslims for as long as the IDF must fight hostile adversaries attacking on the borders. You do know that the traitorous government of Ehud Olmert is following the policies of Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres are making every effort to strip communities' armories of weapons in addition to the Police, with Court backing, removing the citizens' personal and community weapons –– even those of the community's self-defense units? This is a war that Israel did not start, nor will it end until a great number of Arab Muslims are dead and they admit defeat. They will offer no quarter, no pity and will kill any soldier or civilian in the most gruesome method possible. When the Americans fire-bombed Dresden during WW2, all people in Dresden were viewed as the enemy. When Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, killing all the people, under the world's first nuclear bombs, it was because the American government knew that everyone who was an enemy would kill the Americans and Allies when they or if they could. America knew it was at war, while the Israeli government has yet to grasp that critical fact. Israel faces irredentist enemies who delight in killing Jews, be they infants, children, women, elders, husbands, father, brothers... The slaughter of the innocent was their "Rules of Engagement" for war. Therefore, it is time for the Jews to fight back without their so-called "Rules of Battle Purity" –– without the so-called restrictions of the Israeli gentlemanly "Rules of War". Collateral damage (as in Dresden) must be the rule NOT the exception. The rule must be to win at any cost to our self-declared enemies. The Government of Failure must be put under house arrest lest they interfere with the defense of the Nation and her people and her G-d given Land (as they have for their entire terms of office). We are told that Mahmoud Abbas, current President of the Palestinian Authority (aka Abu Mazen) and Head Commander of Fatah, the Tanzim, the Al Aksa Martyrs' Brigade and other factions of the PLO will move in lock-step with the Terrorists in Gaza, Hamas –– under the rule of Ismail Haniyeh, to march 'en masse' through Israel's borders and cross over unless stopped. These are the militia, the real armies, of the Terrorists –– whom the Leftist Media like to call "militants" instead of their real name: Terrorists. If the Media and the world nations finally called them by their real name of Terrorists, maybe we Western nations (including Israel and America) might have a chance to defeat them, defend our people and survive ourselves. They are the enemy and must be treated as the enemy. Whether it's by rifle-fire, air-fuel bombs, artillery, armed drone planes, a well-armed Jewish civilian militia –– all methods must be used to route these merciless enemies. Give them the same pity they would give you and your family. Will the Jew killers of Europe condemn us? Of course, but only because they are the supporters and suppliers of the Muslims who are doing what they would like to do to the Jewish nation and her people –– again. Don't wait until the Muslim migrating into Europe increase their critical mass and continue their assault on the host nations! Maybe (only maybe) then they will wake up. If you think about fighting the enemies of the Jewish people, some will recall their past savagery. Some will recall in 1948 (and years before, especially the big pogroms of 1929 to 1936) how the hordes of Muslim Arabs overran the Jewish communities and slaughtered everyone they could catch. They tortured their victims and to complete their rage, they mutilated the dead. This was the clarion call by Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem: "Itbach al Yehud!" (Kill the Jews!). It's not only retribution for the past, it's what they still do according to their "blood-cult" of their violent Islamic society –– and what they plan to do in the future. Understand that the return of Israeli soldiers' "body parts" recently was NOT done as a kindness or confidence-building gesture, but to rub our soft, Western humanitarian feelings into the hate, cruelty and blood-lust with which they conduct their wars against all "infidels" (non-Muslims). LEARN! War is never civilized. It is brutal, pitiless and cruel. Winner survive; losers die or become slaves. The leaders of Israel today are losers because they wish to be losers. As PM Ehud Olmert said: "I'm tired of fighting; tired of being courageous; tired of winning." The true fact is that Olmert never fought as a soldier –– which became the way for him and his dysfunctional family. Well, he's going to lose, if allowed, and let's NOT let him take the rest of our country and our people –– wherever they live –– with him. 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@gwinston.interaccess.com |
|
ISLAM ON TRIAL
Posted by Michael Devolin, June 23, 2008. |
|
This appeared today in Magic City Morning Star |
|
Myles Kantor has written, "A people's true character emerges as a majority. And when they lived as majorities over Jews, the peace-loving adherents of the Koran distinguished themselves with repeated viciousness and persecution." I have written elsewhere that a religion cannot be accurately judged by the behaviour of its exceptional personalities but only by how it manifests itself within the masses of those that adhere to its tenets. In this respect the religion of Islam has proven to be an insalubrious ideology. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why, whenever reports of terrorism and violence are mentioned in the press, one inevitably thinks of Muslims and Islam. This phenomenon is not to be blamed on Muslims in particular or on those who cogitate toward such conclusions, but rather guilt should be affixed precisely to the religion of Islam as being the solitary source of such terrorism and violence and, consequently, such mass paranoia. By now it should be obvious to anyone following the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal hearing regarding certain of Mark Steyn's publications in Maclean's magazine from his controversial book America Alone that Islam is on trial here and not Mark Steyn. Mark Steyn's offence, if one can wrestle beyond the tedious language of the plaintiffs, is that he writes truthfully about Islam and that hateful and violent behaviour more often than not attributed to Muslims the world over. The censorship and litigious habits of Islam's champions and the darker, malefic aspect of the religious ideology they defend are the issues of the day here and not the person of Mark Steyn or Maclean's magazine. Islam is on trial in Canada because ordinary Canadians have long ago noticed that the atrocities associated with terrorism being perpetrated in places of conflict all over the world are committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. Hence we are concerned, and logically so, that these same atrocities might someday take place on Canadian soil. This concern is not an example of Islamophobia, as Barbara Hall of the BC Human Rights Commission contends; rather this is a quite unremarkable example of national prudence and self-preservation. Why is it a crime to be afraid of a faith group whose religion [Islam] designates Jews as the descendents of swine and monkey and forbids friendships with and affection toward "non-believers"? Why is it a crime to be afraid of a faith group whose zealots feel jubilant about recording the beheading of innocents like Daniel Pearl on video? Although Canada's various human rights commissions would condemn many Canadians as being Islamophobic for saying so, many Canadians perceive such intransigent jubilance as peculiar to the religion of Islam. Sam Harris writes, "Nothing explains the actions of Muslim extremists, and the widespread tolerance of their behaviour in the Muslim world, better than the tenets of Islam." Terrorism is only partially the crime of the terrorist; in a much greater degree it is an explanatory manifestation of Islam. Sophists like the Toronto Star's Haroon Siddiqui and the unctuous BC Human Rights Commission are presently attempting to obfuscate the malevolent reality of Islam by making it a crime for Western journalists like Mark Steyn to articulate into print this same reality. Simply put, the BC Human Rights Commission and Haroon Siddiqui are interested only in censoring the truth about Islam. You can tell the world that Islam is responsible for Algebra and some really neat architecture in India, but you are cannot opine to the world that Muslim suicide bombers in Gaza relish killing Jewish children in Israel because their Koran tells them that all Jews are inherently evil. "You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews..." (Koran 5:80-82) Far from putting Mark Steyn's veracious book to the test, the BC Human Rights Commission is putting Islam and its apologists to the test: if censorship of the truth about Islam, as narrated in Western media, is translated into law, then Canadians will know for certain that Islam has something ominous to hide behind that censorship. The Yiddish proverb is true: "A trick is clever only once." Haroon Siddiqui has written recently in the Toronto Star that, "Beyond the law, there's self-restraint. Most media exercise it every day. We do not publish racist cartoons and anti-Semitic rants." This is true in Canada, Mr. Siddiqui, but let's make known to all Canadians the type of "racist cartoons and anti-Jewish rants" found in media outlets and newspapers in Middle Eastern countries where Islam is the predominant religion. Let's see how Islam manifests where Muslims are the majority and Jews and Christians and Zoroastrians are the minority. This is a veridical example of Islam. This is the Islam many Canadians are afraid of. This is the Islam presently on trial in British Columbia. Michael Devolin is a Noachide and lives in Canada. Contact him at devolin@reach.net |
|
NGO MONITOR'S RESPONSE TO NICOLAS KRISTOF'S NEW YORK TIMES OP-ED "THE TWO ISRAELS"
Posted by Gerald Steinberg, June 23, 2008. |
|
Response to Nicolas Kristof's op-ed "The Two Israels" Letter to the Editor
In his oped, Nicolas Kristof (June 22, "The Two Israels") illustrates the danger of the "halo effect" that surrounds many powerful non-governmental organizations, which use distorted human rights claims to promote ideological agendas. While otherwise very professional journalists question and independently verify the claims of governments, corporations, and others, the statements of groups that assert moral objectives tend to be taken at face value. In this article, Kristof extols B'tselem and Machsom Watch (the women who "volunteer at checkpoints to help Palestinians through"). As documented by NGO Monitor, both are political organizations based in Israel that have appropriated human rights rhetoric for partisan goals, mix fact with fiction, and grossly distort history in order to promote their private agendas. For example, Kristof repeats the simplistic statements of these NGOs regarding Hebron –– a city of immense religious and historical importance to the Jewish people –– without mentioning the impact of the 1929 massacre and expulsion of the entire Jewish community. A limited return to this historic city was only possible after 1967. Since this context is inconvenient for promoting B'tselem's political objectives, which would mean again removing the Jewish population from Hebron, these political activists focus instead on one-sided human rights allegations in which Palestinians are always victims, and Israel is always the oppressor. Seduced by the "halo effect", Kristof uses B'tselem's very narrow window to strip the wider context and sell his own interpretation of the conflict and strip it of the wider context. Following B'tselem's lead, Kristof also ignores the human rights violations of Jewish Israelis in Hebron, including the murder of a 10 month old baby –– Shalhevet Pas by a Palestinian sniper. And claims regarding the impact of Israel's separation barrier and checkpoints completely erases the fact that hundreds or perhaps thousands of Israeli lives that have been spared by preventing the entry of suicide bombers. This is also a primary human rights issue, which the activists in B'tselem and Machsom Watch find inconvenient, and which no human rights group has documented using video cameras. Expropriating human rights rhetoric for partisan claims, erasing the context and complexity of conflict situations, and applying human rights exclusively to one side of a conflict is morally unacceptable. Such biased approaches from NGOs have severely undermined the ethical foundations and credibility of human rights, which are by definition universal and must be applied equally. Gerald M. Steinberg is editor of NGO Monitor and director of the Program on Conflict Management at Bar-Ilan University. Contact NGO by email at mail@ngo.monitor.org and visit the website: www.ngo-monitor.org |
|
MESSAGE TO SARKOVY AND PERES
Posted by Paul Lademain, June 23, 2008. |
|
Sarkozy comes to Israel and shoots off his big mouth about segregating Jews into smaller and smaller regions of its homeland. Yeh rite, like Jews should let this old geezer meddle into Middle East morass. All he wants is to save France from more Muslim madness. Well, France asked the Muslims into their tent, and they, not Israel, must pay for their foolishness. OK... you scared old guys want to segregate Jews into smaller and smaller regions? Well, what's sauce for the gander is sauce for you goose. So how about this? Move that old gooser Peres back to the Jewish ghetto (or what remains of it) in Poland, and ship that horny old goose to Riyadh after the France government cedes the South Coast of France to Islam? (That's only fair ... Besides, most of the South coast of France is already owned by "Ummah" and there are more mosques in Southern France that churches. France should take this advice seriously and meanwhile understand that the US and Israel will "always be a friend to France." But we cannot make the same promise to that senile old Polish Jew, Peres. Nor should we ever promise any favors to Islam's cocksure old goose, Olmert and his so-called "lefty cronies." As for Olmert: Be merciful to Olmert and send him to Riyadh –– perhaps Idi Amin and family has vacated his palatial digs, no? Viva to the Patriots of Israel from the NON-evangelical Christians for Zion. Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net |
|
IRAN'S ABILITY TO AVOID SANCTIONS
Posted by Olivier Guitta, June 23, 2008. |
|
Embarking upon what was described as his European farewell tour, U.S. President George W. Bush made a point last week of focusing on the Iranian issue with his European allies. Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that he was ready to add more sanctions to pressure Iran to give up its nuclear program. At the same time, the Iranian media revealed that in the past few months, Iran, anticipating this move, had withdrawn close to $75 billion of deposits from European banks. This is just an example of why the international sanctions have been somewhat weak. Indeed, Iran has quickly adapted and found a way around the sanctions. Iran's main conduit in avoiding sanctions has been Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. There are historical reasons for this: since the beginning of the 20th century, Dubai and Iran have enjoyed close trade relations. Also, Dubai welcomed several waves of Iranian immigrants. Not a week goes by without an Iranian minister or official visiting Dubai. The 350,000 Iranians of Dubai compose the third largest community after the Indians and the Pakistanis. The large fortunes belong to families of Iranian origin. There are 8,200 Iranian companies today in Dubai compared to 6,500 in 2005. Dubai has become Iran's back-up base and Iranian companies that do business abroad prefer to be based in the emirate. More than 200 flights each week link Dubai to the main Iranian cities. The port ships merchandise of all kinds to Iran, from cars to electric machinery and food. The official trade figure between the two countries is $6 billion annually, but the smuggling amounts to an estimated additional $1.2 billion a year. Out of that $1.2 billion figure about $250 million stems from U.S. goods, supposedly banned from entering Iran. These goods are mostly transported by boat and are never controlled by U.S. warships patrolling the Gulf. Dubai authorities are very lax in enforcing any kind of trade ban and let this traffic thrive. Dubai is not only a great trade hub for Iran but also a financial one. In recent years, Dubai has become the main place for Iranian capital. According to one economist, Dubai received 50 percent of the $20 billion that left Iran in the past 10 years. Dubai is literally the cash cow for Iran in the sense that it accepts billions of dollars of Iranian deposits in cash. Recently a diplomat said regarding Dubai: "One can show up at a bank with $300 million in cash in a suitcase, the bank will accept the deposit without any problems." And this is common practice even after the United States put pressure on Dubai to give up this cash transaction business. Another worrisome trend is Iran's ability to use investment funds domiciled in financial tax havens. There are rumors that Iran would like to open a huge $90 billion fund within the Dubai Financial International Center. Apart from the U.N. sanctions, the U.S. Treasury has led an aggressive campaign to apply targeted financial sanctions. It has succeeded in getting help from various governments and more importantly from large Western banks. This had promising results and it has been tougher for instance for Iranian industrials to obtain letter of credits. But once again, Iran is finding a way around. In fact, letter of credits are now opened by Pakistani banks, second-rate banks in China, or Arab banks in Dubai or even Western banks such as German saving banks or Swiss cantonal banks, for instance. In fact, these banks that have no commercial interests in the United States are happy to do business with Iran by increasing their usual fees by 10 percent to 15 percent. It just goes to show how difficult it is to impose worldwide sanctions on Iran. Indeed there will always be firms or banks or governments for that matter that will see opportunities to do business with the Islamic republic. Since 2003, Iran signed for $20 billion worth of contracts with foreign companies. Also a troubling statistic: from March 2007 to January 2008, non-oil exports have increased 13.8 percent. Also, China, Iran's largest trading partner, is allegedly on the verge of opening a tax-free zone in the Gulf that will primarily serve Iranian clients. Interestingly, a number of U.S. companies are always present in trade shows organized in the tax-free zone of the Iranian island of Kish. Even though it is creating small problems for Iran, the international community must now realize that the sanctions passed have had overall a negligent effect on Iran's economy. Unfortunately, the pressure applied to the mullah's regime in Tehran is not having the desired effect. Tehran is far from giving up its "God-given right" to a military nuclear program and on the contrary, it actually seems even more emboldened to challenge the international community. In light of this, the odds of military action is growing by the day. Olivier Guitta, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a foreign affairs and counterterrorism consultant, is the founder of the newsletter The Croissant (www.thecroissant.com). |
|
WITH FRIENDS LIKE THIS ... SARKOZY: DIVIDE JERUSALEM AND EXPEL THE JEWS FROM JUDEA AND SAMARIA
Posted by Eli E. Hertz, June 23, 2008. |
|
French President Nicolas Sarkozy asked the Knesset on Monday, June 23, 2008 to recognize that "France will always be Israel's friend" and then called for the division of Jerusalem and the expulsion of the Jews from parts of their National Home in Judea and Samaria. The current Israeli government seems to have difficulties educating its guest as to the history of the Jewish people and remind him that on July 24, 1922, France, as a member of the League of Nations recognized "The historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." France, is a signatory to the "Mandate for Palestine," a historical League of Nations document that laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, including the whole of Jerusalem. It was also entrusted, however, with the duty to encourage "close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands not required for public purposes." Nearly 30 years ago, Professor Yehuda Z. Blum, then Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations had the perfect observation which should have been read to President Sarkozy: "A corollary of the inalienable right of the Jewish people to its Land is the right to live in any part of Eretz Yisrael, including Judea and Samaria which are an integral part of Eretz Yisrael. Jews are not foreigners anywhere in the Land of Israel. Anyone who asserts that it is illegal for a Jew to live in Judea and Samaria just because he is a Jew, is in fact advocating a concept that is disturbingly reminiscent of the 'Judenrein' policies of Nazi Germany banning Jews from certain spheres of life for no other reason than that they were Jews. The Jewish villages in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza district are there as of right and are there to stay." France failed to keep its commitment. 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 eli@mythsandfacts.org |
|
SARKOZY: "MOVE JEWS OUT OF JUDEA AND SAMARIA" ... DIVIDE JERUSALEM AND EXPEL THE JEWS FROM JUDEA AND SAMARIA
Posted by Hana Levi Julian and Hillel Fendel, June 23, 2008. |
|
French President Nicolas Sarkozy asked the Knesset on Monday to recognize that "France will always be Israel's friend" –– and promptly called for the division of Jerusalem and for the expulsion of the Jews from Judea and Samaria. Speaking in French from the Knesset podium at a special session held in his honor, Sarkozy said, "Israel will always be every Jewish person's sanctuary. It is the only place where Jews will always be safe." He also called on the Palestinians to stop terrorism against Israel. Having received a red-carpet welcome from the Israeli government, Sarkozy vowed, "France will always be Israel's friend and will always stand in the way of those calling to destroy it." Stop Construction, Deport Jews, Divide Jerusalem He emphasized, however, that there will never be peace in the Middle East until Israel stops building in Judea and Samaria, and said that the Knesset should pass a law to compensate and deport all the Jews currently living there. Sarkozy further said that Jerusalem must be divided into two capitals, including one for a future Palestinian state. The speech was the first by a French president in the Knesset since Francois Mitterrand addressed the plenum in 1982. Responses In response, Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik warned that terror has no boundaries, and that both Iranian nuclear power and Islamist terrorism "will reach Paris after Jerusalem and Tel Aviv." Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in his greetings to the French president, said, "We thank you for your courage, for your principles and for your friendship. On behalf of the Israeli people and the State of Israel, I salute you ... Israel is now hoping for just one more miracle –– the miracle of peace. We believe it will come." Opposition leader and Likud party chairman MK Binyamin Netanyahu said, in his address at the session, that "Israel will never cede the Golan Heights and will never agree to divide Jerusalem." Arab MKs jeered the Likud lawmaker as he addressed the Knesset, forcing the Speaker to threaten the hecklers that she would expel them from the legislative chamber if they continued to interrupt the speech. "This is very unpleasant," she rebuked them. Orlev: French President Needs Lessons in History, Geography MK Zevulun Orlev, Chairman of the National Religious Party, said afterwards, "Sarkozy should stay here a bit longer in order to learn some history, namely, that Jerusalem never beloned to Islam, but only to the Jews. He should also take a geography lesson, and visit Sderot and the transient camps of the Gush Katif expellees before he proposes another [Jewish] expulsion and retreat to the 1967 borders." "His friendship with Israel must be based on those two lessons," Orlev said. MK Benny Elon (National Union) said he agrees that there should be two states, but with slight differences than Sarkozy's proposal: "One state should be Jordan, on the east bank of the Jordan River, and Israel on the west side. No other state should be established between them. If Sarkozy agrees with me about these borders, we'll be able to come to an agreement on the rest." MK Ruby Rivlin (Likud) said, "Dividing Jerusalem into two entities will not bring peace, but will rather eternalize the conflict –– and the settlements are not an obstacle to peace, but rather that which helped give the Jewish People a permanent presence in its land." Sarkozy's Schedule President Sarkozy visited the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial museum Monday morning, accompanied by President Shimon Peres. The distinguished visitor is also scheduled to meet with the parents of kidnapped IDF Cpl. Gilad Shalit, who are French citizens, and with MK Netanyahu. Sarkozy will also meet with Palestinian Authority Chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas before wrapping up his three-day visit on Tuesday. Prime Minister Olmert's spokesman Mark Regev said that diplomatic talks between France and Israel will focus on Iran's nuclear program and on the newly-revived Israeli-Syrian peace talks. Olmert initiated resumption of indirect talks with Syria through Turkish mediators in Ankara several weeks ago. Arab media report that he allowed the issue of ceding the Golan Heights to be placed on the negotiating table. On July 13, Sarkozy will host a conference in Paris where he hopes to bring together Prime Minister Olmert and Syrian President Bashar Assad. Hana Levi Julian is a writer for Arutz-7. Hillel Fendel is senior news editor of Arutz-Sheva. |
|
ABBAS NEGOTIATING TRUCE WITH HAMAS; NY TIMES' SLANTED WORDING; DR KEIDAR ENLIGHTENS AL-JAZEERA
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 23, 2008. |
|
A DIFFERENT VIEW OF IRAQ The US and Israeli media have emphasized objections to the proposed US-Iraq treaty on future relations. These objections come from pro-Iranian Iraqi legislators. Most of the objections involved proposed long-term US bases in Iraq. The proposed treaty really should be thought of more as a peace treaty and an alliance of sorts. Iraqi and US troops have been fighting together against Iran's proxies and other militias, and winning. Prime Min. Maliki, head of Iraq's democratically elected government, himself an Islamist and originally sympathetic to Iran found Iran's profession of friendship for Iraq contradicted by its proxies blowing up parts of Iraq and its attempt to dominate Iraq. Presumably objection to Iran's bid for hegemony was the subject of PM Maliki‘s recent visit to Iran. The day after he returned, his ambassador to Iran received a package-bomb. Iranian police denied it was a bomb, claiming it was equipment for fish tanks. In any case, the US is winning a great strategic victory in Iraq, not that most Americans or Israelis notice. (Democrats refuse to see it.) Iraq has ceased its extensive propaganda against Israel and the Jews. It finds Iran, Syria, and S. Arabia its enemies, responsible for killing many thousands of them. Iraqis consider the Palestinian Arabs as Hussein's henchmen. Nor can Iraq's Shiite leadership depend on other Sunni regimes. It needs allies. Israel, anyone? If Iraq can sign the treaty with the US, it could work out one with Israel. Israel has had alliances with Turkey and Iran, before their Islamist phase. Now Iraq is turning democratic. Perhaps it would be interested in working out a strategic alliance with Israel. There are many potential benefits. Such an alliance would help keep Jordan secure and Israel less isolated. If Iran blocked Iraq's oil-export ports, Iraq could use israeli ports. Israel would get reliable access to fuel from Iraq, now that its supplier, Egypt, is turning fickle. Lebanese Shiites might be drawn to Iraq, rather than to Syria. Syria would start to worry, perhaps doubting its alliance with Iran. The people of Iraq know that Israel is not their enemy. Unlike what the Left says, peace is made not with enemies but with former enemies. Perhaps Iraqis are ready for peace (Caroline Glick, IMRA, 6/24). This is Glick's usual brilliant analysis. But it seems to be too theoretical. She does depict her proposals as something to be tried, not to be taken for granted. What are Iraqis' real attitudes towards Israel? Can they reverse hatred of Jews? Do they need Israeli allies more than they can bear Muslim obloquy over it? Is their democracy multi-ethnic and solid? IRAN BUILDING REFINERIES Iran is vulnerable to a boycott by foreign oil refineries. It does not have enough refineries of its own, though it has the raw materials. To end this vulnerability, Iran is building seven refineries (IMRA, 6/7). The State Dept. undermined a Pentagon strategy of helping dissidents overthrow the expansionist government of Iran. Israel hoped the rest of the world would act. The world never does. Now the only option there is time left for is to blast Iran's nuclear development. Unfortunately, the US relies on diplomacy, which Russia and China block, not that the Democrats noticed the US trying diplomacy and Russia and China being obdurate about it. The lesson here is, wait and the enemy gets out of the trap. The US is facing a shortage of electricity because, as the NY Sun keeps reminding us, that none were built since the 1970s. It does not explain why. It hints that the reason is government regulation, but gives readers nothing to evaluate with. Readers can't open a dialogue with the newspaper, it seems. I tried informing the paper that its TV listings show the wrong numbers for several stations. They keep printing the wrong ones. ABBAS NEGOTIATING TRUCE WITH HAMAS The news brief put it that wary of Israel's plan to invade Gaza, exterminate Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and then gradually turn Gaza over to Abbas, Abbas is trying to work out a coalition government of some kind with Hamas (IMRA, 6/7). He has negotiated coalition with them, before. Avoiding the appearance of being Israel's man in Gaza is only another motive added to his existing motives. Like his mentor, Arafat, prefers national unity against Israel. Conclusion: Abbas has no irreconcilable differences with Hamas. Terrorism is not abhorrent to him. He has been miscast in the West as anti-terrorist. His negotiations with Hamas would protect terrorism. WHAT IT'S LIKE IN ISRAEL Have Israeli license plates? One such car got stoned in Wadi Ara, an Arab-populated part of Israel (IMRA, 6/7). Such attacks are increasingly common, including in the Galilee, by the Bedouin near Beersheba, and by Arabs allowed residency in Israel's capital which is Jerusalem. I mention the city for the benefit of US officials, who deem it to be Tel Aviv. The US thinks that it is its prerogative to designate the capital of Israel. It does not do that for other countries whose territory is in dispute. NY TIMES' SLANTED WORDING Katrin Bennhold reported abut a State Dept. program bringing young, rising, European Muslims to the US. Here, it is hoped, they would see the error in the cultivated impression of the US as plotting against Islam. She put it in her own words, "A factor continuing to fuel anti-Americanism, he said, is the perception that Washington's unstinting support for Israel is unfair to the Palestinians" (6/8, A12) [the Arab ones]. An accurate way of wording it would have been, "the perception that Washington gives unstinting support for Israel is unfair..." The premise, that the US gives "unstinting support for Israel" is as much a misperception as the Arab notion that that support is unfair. The Times puts it as if the "unstinting support" is factual and only the perception of that being unfair is at issue. The statement makes it seem as if the US does not help the P.A. (not to mention its other help for Muslims such as rescuing Bosnia and Kosovo). The US subsidizes the P.A., trains its troops, presses Israel to cease most anti-terrorism efforts and to cede territory, and is trying to get it sovereignty. US help going to genocidal terrorists, I would call that help unfair. "Unstinting" help for Israel? See above. When Israel declared sovereignty, the US embargoed arms shipments to it and although it recognized Israel, it then tried to rescind statehood. The US has reversed most of Israel's military gains against the Arabs and seeks to reverse the rest. The US tries to blackmail Israel by withholding military sales and threatening to do other things. It arms Israel's biggest enemy, Egypt. Although the US forgave Egypt's debt to the US, it does not forgive Israel's. The US does not contradict Islamic propaganda, such as that the Iraq war was waged in behalf of Israel, The US votes for some of the UNO resolutions against Israel, all of which are unfair. The list is long and I've cited it before. This is enough for now. The misstatement is a minor bias. But it is not alone. It is part of a constant slanting of impressions that favor the Arabs and only the Arabs. In 15840, for example, I noted the practice –– not just an isolated lapse, but a practice –– of writing about a disputed incident as if the Arab accusation is factual, though the Arabs usually are propagandistic and the Israelis, usually objective. All the Times slanting is one way. One may deduce that this derives from the paper's traditional anti-Zionism and its adherence more to advocacy journalism than to journalism's code of ethics. FORM P.A. PM QUREIA DESCRIBES NEGOTIATIONS He said that P.A. negotiators consult Arab countries, and if the P.A. doesn't get what it wants from negotiations, it will resume trying to take over Israel (IMRA, 6/7). Thus it remains an uncompromising Arab-Israel conflict. AL-JAZEERA HEARS FACTS, AT LAST Al-Jazeera's best commentator interviewed Israeli professor Mordechai Keidar, in Arabic, after Israel decided to build housing in Jerusalem beyond the Green Line. Mr. Rayyan asked, isn't that decision meant to degrade Israel-P.A. relations. Dr. Keidar replied, Jerusalem has been the Jewish people's for 3,000 years and will belong to them forever. Israel doesn't need foreigners' permission to build there. The interviewer said, if you mention history, then you cannot deny that the Koran refers to Jerusalem, so don't make statements offensive to Muslims. Keidar pointed out that the Koran does not mention Jerusalem. Rayyan said the Muslims interpret a statement as referring to Jerusalem, but Keidar said it does not mention Jerusalem. (Islam has another interpretation, but this one which has become popular for political expediency. The Koran refers to "the furthest mosque." When written, it could not have meant Jerusalem, since the Muslims had not yet gotten people there. It is not an offense to point out their mistakes.) Turning to the present, Rayyan asked, doesn't the decision contradict the Road Map, which prohibits Jewish building in Jerusalem. Keidar pointed out that the Road Map does not mention Jerusalem, Rayyan should consult the Road Map. At this rate of building, Rayyan argued, Jerusalem will absorb the whole W. Bank. Keidar replied that just as Israel does not concern itself with building in Kuwait, no outsider should concern himself with building in Jerusalem, which is a Jewish city (IMRA, 6/7). Good for Dr. Keidar! He made statements that Jews are forgetting, the State Dept. ignores, and the rest of the world doesn't know. The best case for Israel is first, to show the evil behind the Arab cause, second to make an affirmative case for Israel, and only third to defend against the unending stream of false accusations against Israel. Why be defensive and accept the framing of the dispute on Muslim terms? Being unending, one can keep refuting the slander without making one's own case or showing up the other side's evil motive. HALF-HEARTED ATTACK ON GAZA COMING? The government is afraid that accepting a ceasefire with Hamas would appear as a concession to it. Therefore, Israel is likely to make a modest incursion, trumpet the casualties it inflicts, and then claim to have solved the problem but actually depart and leave Hamas to rebuild forces. Defense Min. Barak's supporters along the border want Israel to invade Gaza in sufficient force to make it like Judea-Samaria, where IDF troops and intelligence agents can go anywhere, any time, and keep terrorism tamped down (Dr. Lerner, IMRA, 6/7). Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear regularly in 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 |
|
SO MUCH FOR KEEPING THEIR WORD –– HAMAS SAYS SMUGGLING TO GAZA WILL CONTINUE
Posted by Daily Alert, June 23, 2008. |
|
GAZA CITY (AFP) –– Smuggling into the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip will not stop, the head of the territory's government, Ismail Haniya, said on Friday, threatening an already tenuous two-day-old truce with Israel. During Egyptian-mediated negotiations, Israel "wanted to force Hamas to stop what they call the smuggling of contraband across land and sea borders," Haniya told worshippers before Friday prayers. "They also said that (the release of detained Israeli soldier) Shalit must be part of the truce deal. But we have not agreed to these demands because they are unjust and go beyond the capabilities of this government," he said. Reacting to Haniya's remarks, a spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert underlined that the Egyptian-brokered truce explicitly stated that arms smuggling into the impoverished territory must halt. "The agreement with Egypt states clearly that there must not be any contraband arms heading for Gaza and no attacks from Gaza towards Israeli territory by any of the armed groups," Mark Regev said. "Those people in Gaza who claim this is not true are seeking to weaken the peace," he added. Israeli security sources say Hamas has smuggled more than 100 tonnes of explosives into Gaza, including rockets and anti-tank missiles, since the Islamists seized control of the strip in June 2007. As well a halt to militant rocket fire and Israeli strikes on Gaza, the deal calls for Israel to progressively ease its blockade of the overcrowded strip of land where most of the 1.5 million population depend on aid. Israel has also been pushing for progress over the release of Israeli Corporal Galid Shalit, who was captured by Palestinian militant groups including Hamas in a deadly cross-border raid on June 25, 2006. Hamas has repeatedly stated that Shalit's release and the Gaza truce were separate issues and that Hamas would free him in exchange for 450 prisoners held by Israel. 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 |
|
HIZBULLAH WON'T STOP AT SHABA
Posted by Jonathan Spyer, June 23, 2008. |
|
Israel's announcement of a willingness for peace talks with Lebanon is one of the early fruits of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent visit to the region and her unexpected visit to Lebanon. French President Nicolas Sarkozy's recent visit to Lebanon and upcoming visit to Israel is also crucial here. In the wake of the recent Doha agreement, the US is keen to bolster the position of Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and the March 14 movement of which he is a part. The Cedar Revolution, and the Saniora government which resulted from it, is considered by the US administration to be one of its most significant diplomatic achievements in the region. Doha stipulated the creation of a new cabinet in Lebanon that would include opposition (i.e., Hizbullah and allied) representation. The US is evidently concerned about preserving the standing of Saniora and March 14 in the ongoing Lebanese political standoff. This concern, it is understood, is shared by Sarkozy, who is considered a moving force behind the current initiative. The government of Israel is apparently willing to adopt a newly conciliatory stance on the Shaba farms in order to play its role within this process. Rice, in Beirut, expressed her concern at Hizbullah's prominence in Lebanon and said that the administration intended to address the "real reasons and underlying causes" of this. When asked to define these, she said, according to a report in the Beirut Daily Star, that the issue of the Shaba farms must be resolved "within the context of [UN Security Council] Resolution 1701 rather than Resolution 425." Resolution 425 appeared to close the issue of the Shaba farms, since the UN Security Council ruled that Israel was in full accordance with this resolution after its May 2000 withdrawal to the international Blue Line border between Israel and Lebanon. Resolution 1310, adopted in 2000, confirmed this. Resolution 1701, meanwhile, adopted after the 2006 Second Lebanon War, implicitly reopened the matter by taking "due note" of Saniora's seven-point plan, which asks for the Shaba farms to be placed under UN jurisdiction. The resolution also calls for the disarmament of all militias in Lebanon. The US administration wants to bolster Saniora and simultaneously remove the rationale for Hizbullah's continued bearing of arms. Hizbullah currently uses the Shaba farms as its central rallying cry; hence, the apparent idea is to induce Israel to cede the farms, probably to UN control. This, it is expected, will simultaneously remove Hizbullah's reason for maintaining its armed capacity –– and enable Saniora to pose as the "liberator" of Shaba. The idea is likely to backfire. First of all, while Hizbullah has declared itself opposed to the idea of placing the Shaba farms under UN jurisdiction, this will not prevent it from declaring any Israeli withdrawal as its own achievement, a delayed result of the shock and fear –– and subsequent flexibility –– induced in Israel by the 2006 war. There is no reason to assume that this version will be any less credible than that offered by Saniora. This is particularly so because the call for the "return" of the Shaba farms is associated with Hizbullah and was picked up by other elements in Lebanon only later. Also, Hizbullah will claim that Israeli concessions on this issue are proof positive of the successful application of violence against Israel, since the international community declared the matter closed in 2000 and then reopened it as a result of the war of 2006. (This claim is factually accurate.) Such a path is also unlikely to lead to Hizbullah's disarmament. Hizbullah is, after all, both a local Lebanese actor and a client and creation of Iran. There were those after May 2000 who assumed that once Israel had abandoned the security zone, the former aspect of Hizbullah's identity would take precedence over the latter. This, of course did not take place. Should Shaba be ceded, Hizbullah already has a list of subsequent "grievances" against Israel that will be used to justify further "resistance." These include the seven Shi'a villages that existed in the Galilee prior to 1948, and the large Palestinian refugee presence in Lebanon. The movement has indeed already issued a statement saying that "anyone who believes that placing [the] Shaba farms under UN mandate will mean eliminating the rationale behind our resistance is mistaken." The US and France want to strengthen their partner in Lebanon, who recently suffered a military humiliation. They want to show that aligning with the West brings results, while the allies of Iran are the forces determined to prevent tranquillity. For the reasons cited above, reopening the issue of the Shaba farms is unlikely to produce these desired results. Rather, the impression given is more likely to be one of confusion, disunity and lack of resolution among pro-Western forces in the region. Dr. Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya Israel. This article appeared yesterday in the Jerusalem Post. |
|
ISRAEL AND THE FRONT LINE OF CIVILIZATION
Posted by John David Lewis, June 22, 2008. |
|
This essay was published yesterday on The Objective Standard
website |
|
I just returned from a speaking engagement at Tel Aviv University (pictures from the trip are on my website). My honorarium was four days of sight-seeing in Tel Aviv, Abu Gosh, Jerusalem, En Gedi and Masada, and a series of meetings with writers, policy analysts, academics and writers. I came back with one overriding conclusion, which stands for me stronger than it did before my trip: Israel stands at the front-line of the war between civilization and barbarism. As Eric Hoffer wrote over forty years ago, "as it goes with Israel, so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the holocaust will be upon us all." ("Israel's Peculiar Position, LA Times 5/26/68) Israel is America's best friend in the world today. It is Western in every fundamental respect: Its secular government has prevented both civil war and tyranny since its founding; its citizens' rights are largely protected; its press is free and open; its court system is independent of executive fiat; and its economy is vibrant. It has its share of lunatics, but they have not taken over the culture. It is "middle-eastern" only in location. While driving through Israel, one cannot help but remember that the area can become a military front at any moment. A sign in the road points left to Ramallah, home of Yasir Arafat –– you can drive there (we did not), but an Israeli soldier will soon stop you to warn that the army cannot protect you if you go further. Straight ahead is the road to Jerusalem, which is just a few miles away. It's all so close. In less than half hour's drive, the seacoast climate of Tel Aviv changes to the desert climate of Jordan. Bedouin camps –– temporary structures, some with camels in front –– squat between towns with high-tech industry. Jerusalem itself is deeply permeated with religious fanaticism of all kinds, and with neighborhoods defined by ethnic identities. The line that divided Israeli tanks from those of Arabs during the numerous attacks on Israel is a street –– you can walk down it. On the highway –– a modern road built by the Israelis –– I see towns surrounded by trees. The trees were nearly all planted by the Israelis. This is something little known in the U.S.: The Israelis have planted tens of millions of trees in a desert that had never before been planted, and they remain committed to planting in the Negev Desert, especially near Beer Sheva. Trees did not exist here before 1948. The so-called "Green Line" originally dividing Israel from its neighbors is called such because it literally is a line of green. At one point we come over a hill, and there are two towns ahead. The one on the left is an Israeli "settlement" –– to use the popular phrase in the western press today –– and on the right is an Arab town. To the left is a sea of trees among the buildings, and to the right, none. What the press and politicians in America call "illegal settlements" are Israeli towns, with factories, high-tech industries, and homes –– built on hills where there was previously nothing but sand –– bringing economic life and civilization to the desert. There can be no basis for calling these towns "illegal" because, prior to Israel's establishment of civilization in the area, no law and no government existed there (so-called "International Law" notwithstanding). It is also little known in the United States that when the Israelis announce their intent to withdraw from these areas, thousands of non-Israeli inhabitants –– Muslims and Arabs –– pick up and move to Israeli-controlled areas (Daniel Pipes has recounted some of this). Life under Hamas is hell, life in Israel is good, and most locals know it. As usual, Israel is blamed for the inability to make peace with a foe that is dedicated to destroying her. American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expresses a dominant view in the U.S. State Department when she rants against Israeli towns as an "impediment to peace." Yet observe the Palestinian leadership's response to Rice: "With the arrival of that black scorpion with a cobra's head, Condoleezza, I began to worry that she would use her venomous fangs and hiss to kill this initiative and new spirit that we should protect" said Hamas Minister of Culture 'Atallah Abu Al-Subh,in remarksaired on Al-Aqsa TV on June 15, 2008. The deepest cause of the conflict between Israel and those purporting to lead the Palestinian people is philosophical: the deep inculcation of jihad into the minds of Palestinian youth, in the form of a violent ideology that has nothing to offer except the destruction of Israel and claims to paradise as a reward for death. Samples of this ideological material have been collected at the Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center; follow the link to "Captured Material." Until the motivations for jihad against Israel are admitted, confronted, and repudiated, the causes of war will remain in place, festering in the minds of each new generation of children. All else –– the "settlements," the check-points that prevent non-Israelis from freely partaking of the Israeli economy, the claims to economic devastation, the "historic connection" to a soil that the Palestinians never planted –– is pretense. To see this, all one need ask is why Israel's return to the 1967 borders would remove a cause of war, given that Israel was attacked when she held those borders. And, of course, for Israel to retreat to those borders now would leave foreign enemies a few miles from Tel Aviv. This would be national suicide for Israel, a new holiday for Hamas, and the end of civilization in the Middle East. The Israelis have made the desert bloom. Tel Aviv –– with its skyscrapers and trees –– was entirely undeveloped before the Israelis came and replaced primitive huts with modern buildings. The first Israeli settlers purchased land from inhabitants, and built a city where none existed. Today, their economy is robust and is expected to grow nearly 4% in 2009. And remarkably, despite the constant threat of war and the ceaseless missile attacks, Israeli society is largely unmilitarized. Yes, there is a draft –– but outside of a military base I saw no soldiers in Tel Aviv, and rarely saw a military vehicle on the highways. By driving enemies back and building walls to keep them out, the Israelis have been able to create a peaceful island in a sea of violence. (When was the last time you heard of an "Israeli Day of Rage" and saw Israelis shooting automatic weapons into the air in celebration?) Given the intensity of attacks on Israel, one must wonder whether this ability to live in peace isn't the real bone of contention with her enemies. My trip to Israel made even more obvious to me that Israeli
interests and American interests are in perfect alignment. The
achievement of Israel's goals –– a permanent end to the
war, and the establishment of peace under a rational government
–– are American interests. And the Israelis know it. Never
in any country I've visited (I've been to over a dozen) have I seen so
many American flags. Never have I walked into a shopping mall and seen
a line of life-size mannequins of American soldiers with the host
country's flag on their shoulders. If only the American people and
their politicians knew that I is from the Picasa Web Albums set
entitled "What Freedom Looks Like at Night." It can be found at
 Dr. John David Lewis is Visiting Associate Professor of Political Science, Duke University, and Senior Research Scholar in History and Classics, Social Philosophy and Policy Center. He is author of Solon the Thinker and Early Greek Lawgivers. Visit his website: www.classicalideals.com |
|
TWO MORE REACTIONS TO PRESBYTERIAN INTERFAITH DOCUMENT
Posted by A Recovering Presbyterian, June 22, 2008. |
|
For those interested in the topic, I came across two more reactions by non-Presbyterians to the PC(USA)'s recent revision (gutting) of its paper on anti-Jewish bias. Christianity Today featured a piece by Rabbi Yitzchok
Adlerstein, "The Presbyterians Giveth, the Presbyterians Taketh Away"
"Think back some 40 years to the release of Nostra Aetate, the revolutionary Vatican document that inexorably changed the nature of Catholic-Jewish relations. It firmly confronted old church attitudes and teachings that Jews suffered under for centuries. It unequivocally asserted the historical and theological dignity of the Jewish people. Dexter Van Zile provides a thorough treatment in "Presbyterian
Officials Prepare for General Assembly With Bait and Switch Tactics."
Will Spotts Contact A recovering Presbyterian at wspotts@zoominternet.net |
|
ATTACKS ON COPTIC HOMES AND BUSINESSES IN AL-NAZLA EGYPT
Posted by Morris Sadek, June 22, 2008. |
|
this comes from AFP
|
|
Police arrested 20 people when hundreds of Egyptian Muslims attacked Coptic Christian property after a woman who converted to Islam went missing, a security official said on Saturday. At least five people were also slightly hurt when police used tear gas to disperse protesters in the village of Al-Nazla, in the province of Fayyum 100 kilometres (62 miles) south of Cairo on Friday, the official said. The woman later returned home with her 10-month-old baby after a three-day visit to relatives in the capital, security officials said. Muslim villagers went on the rampage after word that the woman had gone missing from her home and was said to have abducted by her Christian family. Al-Nazla residents threw stones at houses and shops owned by Copts ... because the villagers believed that the woman had been kidnapped by Christian members of her family," the official said on condition of anonymity. "Some 50 Coptic homes and businesses, including pharmacies, grocers and electrical appliance shops were sacked," he said. Coptic resident Sayyed Ghattas said "I was surprised at this attack by people with whom we were on good neighbourly terms and who, all of a sudden, turned on us. This matter had nothing to do with us." Earlier this month the Coptic Ecclesiastical Council issued an unusually strongly worded statement urging President Hosni Mubarak to guarantee the safety of Christians in Egypt. The statement referred to a violent attack on a monastery in May in which four Copts were injured, and called on Mubarak to prevent "more armed attacks on monks" and "insults to the cross." That attack, in the southern town of Mallawi, sparked fears of sectarian strife in an increasingly religious, Sunni Muslim-dominated society in which tensions with Christians are already running high. Egypt's Copts –– the largest Christian community in the Middle East –– account for an estimated six to 10 percent of the country's 76 million inhabitants and complain of systematic discrimination and harassment. Casualties include: * Stones were hurled at St Mary's church shattering the windows Morris Sadek Esq is a lawyer at the Court of Cassation, Egyptian special Legal Counsel and the DC Bar, United States of America. He is President of the National American Coptic Assembly USA. |
|
THOUSANDS ON FACEBOOK TO DISPLAY SCHALIT'S PICTURE
Posted by Avodah, June 22, 2008. |
|
This is archived at
|
|
The day chosen for the worldwide act of solidarity marks two years since Schalit was kidnapped. According to the initiative's slogan, the aim is for individuals to express that "I too have been waiting for Gilad Schalit for two years." The Israeli Facebook group called "The petition for the release of Gilad Schalit" has been promoting the joint action and is backed by approximately 4,500 members. The group claims that Schalit is "one of us and his place is with us." Members are able to invite other Facebook participants to the group and post messages on the group's main page. Some of the messages include links to related Web sites and on-line petitions. Dana Lazar, an Israeli college student who plans to change her Facebook picture to that of Schalit on Wednesday, believes as a former Israeli soldier, it is her duty to do so. "When you are a soldier you want your government and country behind you. By changing your picture you make other people stop their lives to think and care," she said. Like Lazar, others in the group consider their effort just a small way to reach out to other Israelis. "The purpose of posting Schalit's picture is not necessarily to impact the government, but to impact Israeli society," said Gery Klein, a political science student at Bar-Ilan University and a member of the Facebook group. "It's not a beginning and it's not an end –– it's a continuation of a struggle," he said.
Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com
|
|
FRANCE'S CONTINUING 'EPIDEMIC' OF ANTI-SEMITISM
Posted by Avodah, June 22, 2008. |
|
This comes from the website of Carl of Jerusalem
|
|
A French Jewish teenager was severely beaten on Saturday night in eastern Paris. 17-year old Rudy Haddad was identifiably Jewish –– he was wearing a kippa (skullcap). Haddad was beaten with iron bars, which probably are not lying around in the streets of Paris (at least they were not when I was last there in the fall of 2005). That indicates that the attack was probably premeditated. And the identification of his attackers as 'African youths' makes it more likely than not that they were Muslims. A police source says that Haddad is suffering from 'severe neurological problems' as a result of the beating. If anyone has his Hebrew name and his mother's Hebrew name, I will be glad to add them to this post. He is in a coma in the intensive care unit of a hospital. The reason why France continues to have a 'problem' with anti-Semitism is that it continues to treat it with multi-culti kid gloves. For an example, one need look no further than French President Nicolas Sarkozy's 'condemnation' of the attack. Sarkozy issued a statement "renewing total determination to fighting all forms of racism and anti-Semitism." Excuse me, but what was anyone other than Haddad attacked? Was anyone other than a Jew attacked? Then why the multi-culti politically correct statement about "all forms of racism and anti-Semitism" (which reminds me of how Arab countries occasionally condemn terrorism against Israel by condemning "all forms of terrorism including state terrorism" –– a meaningless statement if I ever heard one)? Until the French leadership is willing to look the problem in the eye and identify it by its name in unadulterated form, the Rudy Haddad's of France will unfortunately continue to be terror victims. Refuah Shleima (a full and speedy recovery) Rudy, and please consider coming on aliya (immigrating to Israel) with your family when you recover. You're 17-years old and ought to have your whole life ahead of you. There's no sense in staying in a country where you're not wanted when you don't have to stay there. UPDATE 6:44 PM. Here are some more details. A 17-year-old Lubavitcher Hassid was walking near his home in a Jewish neighborhood in France on Friday night when he was brutally attacked by several youths with metal pipes. Passers-by alerted police, and he was brought to a hospital, where doctors are working to save his life. ... Because of the Sabbath and its prohibitions on carrying items outside, the victim had no identification on him. He was identified only hours after the attack, when his family notified police that he was missing and the connection was made. UPDATE: July 24, 2008, www.IsraelNationalNews.com (IsraelNN.com) Rudy Haddad, the 17-year-old Jewish day school student who was brutally attacked Saturday night by a gang of 30 youth of Africa origin, has come out of a coma but is in the intensive care unit at the Cochin hospital in Paris. He suffered several broken ribs and a fractured skull. Police arrested five suspects, but several media reports stated that as many as 30 attackers joined the assault, some of them using metal bars. Haddad's father said that there were 15 attackers. UPDATE: July 26, 2008, www.theyeshivaworld.com/article.php?p=20228 Five youths detained after a Jewish teenager was beaten into a coma by a gang in Paris have been released without charge, AFP reported Wednesday quoting judicial officials. The minors, aged 14 to 17, were held for questioning as witnesses following the attack this past Shabbos in the multi-ethnic 19th district of the capital –– reported HERE on YWN. The Paris prosecutor Jean-Claude Marin said Tuesday the 17-year-old victim, Rudy Haddad, was beaten by a gang after street brawls between Jewish teenagers and youths of north African and sub-Saharan descent. The boy was so badly beaten by a gang wielding metal bars that he went into a coma from which he only emerged on Monday. According an informed source, he is slowly recovering but remains "very traumatized" and is encountering memory problems. A probe for "murder attempt aggravated by its anti-Semitic character" has been launched against the perpetrators, a group of six or seven youths of black African origin, who remain at large. The prosecutor has confirmed the anti-Semitic character of the aggression and said anti-Semitic insults –– like "dirty Jew" –– were shouted during the aggression. Sources quoted in the press reported that several brawls broke out in the area Saturday afternoon between Jewish and North Africans and black youth groups and that Haddad was attacked later on the day when he was walking alone in Rue Petit, near a Lubavitch Shul. Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com |
|
THOSE DEVLISH DETAILS OF OIL SPECULATION
Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, June 22, 2008. |
|
Who is more likely to substantially bring down the price per barrel of oil, U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama or U.S. presidential candidate John McCain? Whichever candidate can convince the American electorate he will metaphorically wave his magic wand and perform this presumed miracle will win the coveted office in a landslide, indeed become head honcho of the free world if he succeeds. That world teeters on the brink of economic recession (or worse). Filthy rich oil producing terrorist financing regimes like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, and Venezuela get richer and richer while bizarrely no leader of the presumed civilized free industrial world to date even lifts a finger to stop this perilous trend. Yet, the entire evil operation of worldwide energy extortion can be put out of business if speculators in arcane virtual oil futures are properly regulated. Period! F. William Engdahl, associate of the Centre for Research and Globalization, author of A Century of War: Anglo American Oil Politics and the New World Order, meticulously analyzes why oil prices are rising to the moon in a Global Research article dated 05/02/2008 suggesting 'Perhaps 60% of today's oil price is pure speculation.' The implications are enormous! The price of oil, thus the economies of rogue perilous terrorist financing regimes, can be brought down if oil market trading wizards are reined in allowing the civilized world to breathe a sigh of relief, and all it takes is one intrepid world leader with sufficient clout. Are you up to that task Obama? Are you up to that task McCain? Below is one excerpt from Engdahl's article. A June 2006 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report on "The Role of Market Speculation in rising oil and gas prices," noted, "...there is substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the large amount of speculation in the current market has significantly increased prices." Precise details are delineated throughout the body of the author's expose, left to those with some understanding of market operations, but it takes no expert to realize that these white collar thieves can be thwarted if the next U.S. president has the will to so use his bully pulpit and accomplish the momentous task. Indeed, more can be accomplished through regulatory mechanisms than any 'shock and awe' strategy or long term military occupation, both quite unnecessary if rogue regimes and by extension their terrorist proxies such as Hamas and Hizbullah are punished economically by substantially reducing their raw material revenues. Will Obama or McCain walk the walk in lieu of merely spewing tough rhetoric? What could be more urgent then busting highjackers commandeering a speculative gravy train, pulling boxcars of world class nations linked together, about to fly off a cliff overlooking catastrophe canyon? Those two political heavyweights must know what's at stake. Talk all you want about aborting Iran's nuclear ambitions, but one good shot in the economic solar plexis and that becomes a fait accompli. How can America's high leadership sit around with their thumbs up their 'you know whats,' watch pump prices triple in less than one presidential term in the White House, watch more and more citizens trade meals for fuel, and not do something? Do they like fiddling while their modern day Roman Empire burns? Don't they grasp how simple it would be to put the kabash on the real 'evil doers'? Can't they just instruct those anti-regulation free market ideologues in the U.S. Congress to do what's best for the country they were elected to steward as well as the planet? Maybe it takes a change in administrations, replacing those with perhaps personal agendas and interests relating to fossil fuel. Note the following excerpt from Engdahl's article. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley today are the two leading energy trading firms in the United States. Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase are major players and fund numerous hedge funds as well who speculate. $135 per barrel and growing is the current situation. No doubt, the diminished value of Uncle Sam's greenback causes an upsurge in pricing, but speculators apparently are responsible for the lion's share of Saudi Arabia's, Iran's, Sudan's, and Venezuela's among other despotic regimes' ill gotten gains. Might we speculate whether Obama and/or McCain will be willing to firmly confront the speculating firms on Wall Street and worldwide exchanges, as well as a hesitant U.S. Congress composed of members with varying attitudes, telling them in no uncertain terms to lay down the law, exhorting that body to pass legislation implementing and financing regulatory mechanisms to successfully attack this cancerous blight that eats away at the pocketbook and soul of civil mankind, alas our besieged planet's presumably premier intelligent species yet to substantially and wisely begin phasing out of oil altogether by developing a cheap and efficient alternative energy source? Of course, cheaper oil doesn't help that essential initiative, but first things first. First save the patient then fix the patient! Choke the malignant tumors by cutting off their blood supply; then wean the patient back to full strength with a proper diet. Israel, a nation bereft of oil reserves yet tormented by oil producing regimes, should assume a more proactive role by directly engaging both U.S. presidential contenders, imploring them to throw their weight around even now and begin defusing a crisis exponentially expanding in intensity. Albeit an arcane concept, so much depends on prudent regulation of that complex oil futures market. The devil indeed is in the details, and in this case those details, mastered by but a relatively few oil traders, has put the much of the world's economic vitality in jeopardy. We might soon observe if either candidate is up to this immense task. We might soon observe if Wall Street and kindred spirit traders will continue calling the shots at the expense of so many. Stay tuned! 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 |
|
US-FUNDED NETWORK AIRS VIRULENT ANTI-ISRAELI REPORTS
Posted by HaDaR, June 22, 2008. |
|
What wouldn't this US Government do to please Saudi Arabia? This was written by Yitzhak Benhorin and was published today in Ynet News
|
|
US-funded network airs anti-Israeli reports New investigation into US government-funded Arabic news network reveals anti-Israeli content including Hizbullah leader's speech, live coverage of Tehran Holocaust deniers' convention American taxpayers are paying for an Arab television network that broadcasts anti-Israeli diatribe, according to a joint investigation by 60 Minutes and ProPublica, an independent, non-profit investigative journalism newsroom led by Paul Steiger, former managing editor of The Wall Street Journal. The anti-Israeli content was aired despite the fact that Al Hurra management promised Congress nearly two years ago that they would take measures to prevent such mistakes, which had occurred repeatedly before. The joint investigation will be broadcast on 60 Minutes on Sunday. The Virginia-based Al Hurra was created four years ago by the Bush Administration to counter what was seen as an anti-American bias at Arab satellite news channels like the Qatar-based Al Jazeera. Nearly half a billion dollars has been spent since its inception and its top executive, Brian Conniff, assured 60 minutes that things had improved editorially. But 60 Minutes and ProPublica monitored the broadcast last month and found a Palestinian guest named Hani El-Masri on its flagship show "Free Hour" calling Israel a "racist" state that is conducting its own "Holocaust" against Palestinians. His exact quote, unchallenged by the host or balanced by another panel member, was "(Israel) is the occupying and racist state that imposes the stifling and deadly blockade and perpetrates a holocaust against 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza." Conniff, who speaks no Arabic, said he was unaware of this and after looking into the matter said, "Any implication that Al Hurra is anti-Israeli is absolutely wrong." Asked if this latest example is part of a pattern, Conniff told 60 minutes reporter Scott Pelley, "No. There's absolutely no pattern." He points out that the previous examples were discovered a year and a half ago. At that time, members of Congress threatened to hold up funding because Al Hurra broadcast a live hour-long speech by Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah –– whose group is considered by the US to be a terrorist organization. A few weeks later, an Al Hurra reporter named Ahmed Amin delivered a biased report from the Holocaust Denier's Conference in Tehran. He said that while some participants were sure that millions of Jews died in Germany, "the group did not reinforce their statements with scientific evidence, but instead they were content to tell stories passed on to them by their ancestors." Soon afterward, irate members of Congress were assured that Ahmed Amin would be fired, but the investigating groups learned that 18 months later he was still on the US government payroll. He was fired only after 60 Minutes and ProPublica began inquiring. Larry Register, the news director of Al Hurra who made the decisions to cover both the conference and Hizbullah speech, was forced to resign. He defended his decisions by saying he was trying to make Al Hurra more credible and relevant to people in the Middle East, and that the Nasrallah speech was big news, pointing out that every other Arab channel carried it live. "I considered it newsworthy," he said. Jim Glassman, who until last week chaired the US government's Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees Al Hurra said in response to the findings, "We are not allowed to provide a platform for terrorists. We are required to provide balance and objectivity. Our idea with Al Hurra was to create a network to provide high quality, professional journalism with American standards. I think we've done that." But there are many critics of Al Hurra, including US diplomats, who complain in internal documents about the poor quality and lack of professionalism of the Al Hurra broadcast, overseen much of the time by non-Arabic speaking directors. Register's response to this was that governments and journalism don't mix. "You can't make independent decisions if you have a government over you telling you what you can and can't do. It's a no-win situation, as I painfully found out," he remarked. HaDaR can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net. |
|
REACTION TO "THE TWO ISRAELS" BY NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF IN THE NY TIMES
Posted by David Wilder, June 22, 2008. |
|
Nicholas D. Kristof called me a few days ago and we spoke for a while on the phone. Obviously he visited Hebron, but did not see fit to interview me at the time, preferring a phone conversation. That fact, in and of itself, is unfortunate, for had he spent some time with me on site, seeing Hebron through Jewish-Israeli eyes also, perhaps his column would have been written differently. Perhaps, on the other hand, Kristof came to Hebron with an agenda and interviewed me only to be able to include a 'soundbyte' with a 'setter' in order to fulfill the seemingly 'objectivity obligation' of professional journalists. His 'agenda' is all too plausible, considering, for example, the books he suggested as reading material, including one by Akiva Eldar, who is one of the leading leftist columnists in Israel, writing for the most leftwing daily in the country. This thought is reinforced with Kritsof's reliance on "B'tzelem" –– an Arab-Palestinian 'human-rights' organization, which cares only about Arab human rights, but has no interest in Israeli-Jewish human rights. It is composed of Arabs and extreme left wing activists, whose goal is Israel-bashing. Of course, Kristof quotes only one short sentence from our interview. He seems to have forgotten a number of points broached during our conversation: Kristof claims: More than 1,800 Palestinian shops have closed, in some cases the doors welded shut, and several thousand people have been driven from their homes. The number 1,800 is greatly exaggerated. According to ranking IDF sources the number is closer to nine hundred. (This is one of the problems with foreign journalists who are quick to accept anything and everything given to them by B'tzelem or other left-wing organizations without demanding proof of their statements.) Why are any stores closed in Hebron? Ten years ago they were all open. However, with the outbreak of the 'Oslo War' (the 2nd Intifada) in October, 2000, Arab terrorist gunman began shooting at the Jewish neighborhoods in Hebron from the very hills transferred to them by Israel as part of the Hebron Accords, implemented in 1997. People were shot at on the streets, and in their cars and homes. An infant was murdered by a sniper, others were wounded and a suicide bomber exploded on the main road, killing the Levy couple from Kiryat Arba. The IDF had no choice but to close stores in Hebron because of the security threat they posed. That threat still exists today. Terrorists are frequently apprehended, admitting that they planned to kill a Jew. At the same time it must be noted that the Arabs of Hebron have
access to about 98% of the entire city, whereas Jews have access to 3%
of the city. The "Arab" side of Hebron, under the control of the
Palestinian Authority is called "The Safest Place in the territories"
by Danny Rubenstein, another Ha'aretz writer
He writes: Most Israelis imagine Hebron to be the site of harsh conflicts between Jewish settlers and Arab residents. But the truth is that with the exception of the point of contention at the Tomb of the Patriarchs, this is the quietest and safest city in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. While Gaza is the scene of daily shootings and infighting between a variety of groups, and one might say that personal safety in Ramallah and Nablus is also precarious, Hebron is tranquil. There are no militias, no armed gangs and no hooligans. There is a traditional tribal social structure, no refugee camps inside the city and the town's large and powerful families do not permit lawlessness...The market... is a source of pride among Hebron residents. It is clean and organized. Trade between merchants is documented on computers and municipality officials say there is no more modern and efficient market in the entire PA. Nor is there a market like it in Jordan or even in Tel Aviv. I totally and utterly reject the statement that thousands of Arabs have been driven from their homes. This is totally false. There are Arabs who have left of their own accord, but none have been expelled, as is written in the article. The Abu Aisha baby story is also a fairy-tale. Did the author request proof, or accept it at face value? There is absolutely no impediment to an Arab ambulance reaching her home. It should also be noted that her home is a five minute walk to the checkpoint leading to the Arab side of the city. She and her neighbors have never had any problems getting to, or leaving their homes. Kristof writes: "Even if the Hebron settlement were not illegal in the eyes of much of the world, it is utterly impractical. The financial cost is mind-boggling, and the diplomatic cost is greater." Firstly, the Hebron Jewish community was recognized and given legitimacy by Arafat himself, when he signed the Hebron Accords in January, 1997. 2. The claims that Hebron's Jewish community is illegal according to international law are nonsense. Jews lived in Hebron for thousands of years until being expelled in 1929, following the massacre which left 67 Jews murdered and scores wounded. 3. What 'the eyes of the world" think is absolutely irrelevant. The 'eyes of the world' were blind to the annihilation of 6 million Jews 60 years ago. Only yesterday we read that the UN opposes any military strike against the Iranian nuclear plants. What would they prefer: that Israel go up in flames?! 4. The IDF is stationed in Hebron for more than one reason. Of course, they are here to protect the city's residents and over half a million annual visitors. However, they are also in Hebron to prevent the city from becoming a terrorist nest, as was Jenin and other Samaria cities, when the IDF evacuated them. Terrorists from Hebron have perpetrated mass murder in Tel Aviv and other cities in Israel. Only a strong IDF presence in the city can deter such attacks. As for the checkpoints, that is the only point the author allows me a reaction in his article. No point could be more valid. The other so-called facts Kristof mentions in the article are nothing more than well-polished regurgitations from the Arab propaganda machine. Again, no proof of facts, only oft-repeated claims, with nothing to back them up. Kristof told me that he's not stationed in the Middle East. This is quite clear from the ignorance he portrays in this column. I would suggest that the next time the NY Times desires to print a column about Hebron, they should instruct their reporter to visit both sides, and examine the issues accurately and objectively, rather than publish such a biased, imprecise article. David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com |
|
WHOSE JERUSALEM? WHOSE LAND? WHOSE "PROMISED LAND"?
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, June 22, 2008. |
|
Sometimes it's a good idea to review what was said in the past and check if the forecast stood the test of time. I wrote this and it was published in March of 2000. |
|
March 25, 2000 It would appear that the casual use of the expression "The Promised Land" has lost its meaning to those who would undo that Promise. Perhaps you will recall that G-d Promised the Land first to Avraham and the Jewish People and then conveyed that promise to Moses. There were no qualifications in fine print. G-d made a Promise within His unbreakable Covenant with the Jewish people which did not mention Rome, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, France, England, America or any other country or people. Now, with arrogance and evil intent, the nations of the world come to inform the Jewish people and G-d that they, the nations, have the right to add a codicil or addendum to G-d's Contract (Covenant) with the Jewish people. The Pope came to Mount Nebo, purportedly the place where Moses stood to view the Land of Israel promised to him for the Jewish People by G-d for the unending generations of the Jewish people. There seems to be no embarrassment as all the media call Israel the "Promised Land", completely ignoring to whom it was unequivocally promised. Certainly the Land was not promised to the arch terrorists Yassir Arafat or Hafez al Assad and the Arabs who continue to teach hatred of the Jewish people. But, this coalition of evil intent converges on what they call "The Promised Land" to first dilute the Jewish claim to the Land, no doubt to be followed by total ethnic cleansing. Do you not find it puzzling that the Arab nations who cover millions of square miles and possess untold oil wealth, hunger for that minuscule strip of land called Israel? We appreciate the words of peace coming from a frail old man but the divided message that Jerusalem does not belong to the Jews is unacceptable. Those millions of true Bible believing Christians who support Israel's primary claim to "The Promised Land" will not be offended by the word 'evil'. They know what was Promised and to whom. Those who would deny that Promise by war, terror or this false 'Process' called 'peace' have brought evil into the world by trying to undo G-d's Authority and Judgement. "Pope John Paul II gazed toward Israel today, March 20, from Mount Nebo, where the Bible says G-d showed Moses The Promised Land. As he landed in Amman Jordan, he claimed that "In this area of the world there are grave issues and urgent issues of justice, of the rights of peoples and nations which have to be resolved for the good of all concerned...for the "displaced people in your midst," a reference to Palestinian refugees."(1) These are 'code-words' for 'take The Promised Land of Israel away from the Jews and give it to the Arabs'. These 'code-words' are well-known by those who closely follow the war waged by the world against Israel. If the Pope (and the nations) said, "There will be peace if we follow G-d's Word, and leave The Promised Land to the people to whom He Promised it" –– then indeed there would be a true, just and lasting peace. Surely, Hell must have opened its portals as we hear that President Clinton will meet with Hafez al Assad of Syria on Sunday March 26 [2000] to discuss the future of Israel. We have watched the gatherings of evil as they converge to lay their spurious claims to Jerusalem, presumably to entrap G-d in His dwelling place on earth. Why else through centuries of conquest have the Christians built churches on the Temple Mount, the Holy of Holies? Why then would the Muslims come to kill the Christians and build mosques, also on the Temple Mount and over the ruins of the Christian churches? Whoever was in power –– each denied freedom of worship to the other, while both refused it to the Jews. Are these peace-makers? I think not. Countless invaders, weighed down by their earthbound minds, came to the Holy City of Jerusalem, with extreme prejudice, to capture her stones, plunder the Holy Articles from King Solomon's Holy Temple that the Jews used to serve G-d. Can we ignore the carved frieze depicting roman conquerors, carrying the Holy Menorah, booty from the desecrated Jewish Temple back to the "Holy" Roman Empire treasury where it was entombed in its vaults. These aggressive conquerors believed that, if they captured the Holy Temple and its artifacts, they would firmly establish their claim to be the true representatives of G-d on earth. How does one actually go about capturing G-d and then binding Him to your wishes? The answer is, they could not, with all of the invaders and their nations, eventually becoming extinct. Once again they came, first laying siege and, failing that, joining forces with other countries –– Muslim and Christian –– claiming entrance into the City of Jerusalem under a false banner of 'peace'. Was there ever a more unholy cabal than institutional Christianity and Islam, the quintessential Amalekites, joining forces to command G-d's Recognition? They do not come to worship peacefully at His Holy Mountain as they claim. They come with guile, backed by force, to demand that G-d bow to them. They come to tell G-d that he has made a 'clerical' error and it is their names which should be affixed to the Covenant –– not the Jews. Was there ever such an arrogant, cursed rabble who come to attempt to finish killing G-d's Chosen servants? To be sure, they have found allies among some Jews who are willing to lick the boots of these would-be conquerors and play the role of infamous court Jews. No doubt, they will be dealt with as were the worshipers of the Golden Calf. Moses gave the Jewish people a choice at Sinai –– to join Moses in accepting G-d's Commandments or remain with those who worshiped the golden idol. That choice is once again being offered to the nations and the Jewish people. You will recall, those who worshiped the beast were slain by G-d. Muslim/Arab terrorists and Muslim/Arab countries' armies have been in a constant state of war with the Jews ever since the Jews returned to their Promised Land. The Jews are tired of fighting off the Arabs while losing their sons and daughters to their assaults. That is natural but, giving up G-d's Land, Promised to them, will not appease the conquerors. It is merely an invitation to war consistent with shrinking the tiny country of Israel until she appears weak enough to overpower. The Muslims and Christians (or rather the UN-Christians) believe they need to displace the Jews in order to eliminate any Jewish claim to G-d's Covenant so that they can claim that Covenant and to be G-d's Chosen. Displacing the Jews from their Promised Land is not the way to win G-d's favor. Ever since the Jews returned to the Land G-d Promised to them, they have welcomed Christians and Muslims equally to freely worship in their own churches and mosques. They have even passed formal laws, insuring free unimpeded passage for those who come in Peace. Arafat and the Palestinians have already demonstrated and announced that they have no intention of allowing the Christians free passage into areas over which they have control. The Pope has tried to negotiate a document with Arafat which states that Christian holy places under the Palestinians will not be taken over by the Palestinian Authority. This already indicates that the Pope knows exactly what will happen under Muslim control. The churches and shrines of Jerusalem have never enjoyed such freedom as they have under the Jews. But, clearly, that was not enough. The Christians want the City internationalized, with joint ownership, insuring the freedom of worship which they, in fact, already have. What is really being said is that neither the Church of Rome nor the Muslims whose holy center is in Mecca, want the Jews to have the symbols of a people made whole in their own Land and in the capital chosen by G-d for them. Because the Jews have the City of Jerusalem, therefore, Rome and Islam want it. The Palestinians have already stated that, when they get full control of Israel's second most holy city of Hebron and the burial caves of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah, no Jew will be allowed in to pray. Think of that –– The father of the Jewish people has been claimed as a Muslim. Just as Jerusalem suddenly became Islam's third holiest city in 1967 after Jerusalem was re-united, the Tomb of the Patriarchs was turned into a mosque and the Jews will be locked out as they were before when the Machpelah was under Muslim rule. Jerusalem will suffer the same fate if she is ever allowed into the hands of a people who recreates history to suit their own purposes. Regrettably, the Church of Rome knows this but, because it also suits them, they accept and perpetuate the Big Lie. G-d will not welcome killers and liars into His Courtyards of Heaven. As is said: "I will cleanse the nations of their wrongdoings, but for the shedding of Jewish blood I will not cleanse them; the Lord dwells in Zion."(2) ### 1. "Pope Begins His Holy Land Pilgrimage in Jordan: Prays at Site Looking to Promised Land" by Alessandra Stanley, New York Times, 3/21/2000 2. Joel 4:23 |
|
GULF TO EARN $ 1.3 TRILLION FROM OIL IN TWO YEARS
Posted by Avodah, June 21, 2008. |
|
This is a news item from Agence France-Presse . It appeared
in today's Gulf in the Media |
|
The oil-rich Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states are projected to earn close to 1.3 trillion dollars in oil revenue in 2008 and 2009, a Kuwaiti economic report said on Saturday. The six-nation alliance –– Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia –– earned 364 billion dollars from oil in 2007, the Al-Shall Economic Consultants said in its weekly report. The GCC oil revenues are projected to reach 636 billion dollars in 2008 and 657 billion dollars in 2009, Al-Shall said. Oil powerhouse Saudi Arabia's earnings in the two years will be just under 700 billion dollars. The kingdom posted 194 billion dollars in oil revenues in 2007. The six states, which boast just less than half of the world's crude proven reserves, produce around 16 million barrels per day, or just under one-fifth of the world's consumption. Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com |
|
PROPAGANDA, LIES, AND WIRE SERVICE ARTICLES
Posted by Barry Rubin, June 21, 2008. |
|
Today, journalism students, in our course, "Absolutely Introductory Basic Rules of Journalism, we will discuss the absolutely introductory basic rules of journalism. I don't think I'm an old fogey but in my hazy memories of the good old days I think there was a time when reporters were supposed to represent both sides of the story. I hear some gasps of amazement in the classroom. Yes, it is true. Nowadays we are more enlightened and the process goes something like this: 1. Decide which side is the good guys. This can be based on your ethnic-communal background (unless you are Jewish since then you must lean over backward to prove yourself fair by supporting the other side), political ideology, or –– if all else fails –– which ever side is weaker. (The word "underdog" might not be PC any more so I will avoid it.) Incidentally, questions of past credibility are irrelevant. If one side can be shown to have lied repeatedly that doesn't count. Pointing this out could get you accused of racism or imperialism, while the "good guys," once so designated, are allowed to lie because they are pursuing a "good cause." Governments are held to lie always, especially if they are democratic ones. While the above is written to be humorous and is no doubt somewhat exaggerated it does give a pretty good idea about the genesis of all too many newspaper articles nowadays. Consider, for example, Dalia Nammari, "Israel curbs Palestinian building on disputed land," AP. The article has 1,107 words long which by contemporary standards is quite long. Number of words used to explain Israel's position: 76. Number of words used to advocate the Palestinian cause? You do the math. Basically, as so often happens, the reporter serves as the mouthpiece for one side (it always seems to be the same side) in language calculated to tug at the readers' heart-strings. Here's the lead: "AQABEH, West Bank –– The elders of this West Bank village hold their meetings under a carob tree, sitting on boulders arranged in a circle. It looks idyllic, but is born of necessity, the council doesn't have a meeting hall." Let's stop here a moment and rest under the shade of that carob tree. Israel's Supreme Court has often ruled against the Israeli government. For example, in response to Palestinian suits, the route of the security fence has often been altered at great expense to the Israeli taxpayer so as to make the lives of Palestinians easier. (Occupying powers usually don't let people from the side carrying out terrorist attacks against them to sue and win in court. Why, that might even be a good topic for a 1,107 word article some day!) Why, then, did these villagers lose in court? The reporter might be expected to tell us, but that could ruin this touching story. The article continues: "Aqabeh's plight is similar to scores of Palestinian villages in `Area C,' the nearly two-thirds of the West Bank that remained under full Israeli control following a 1990s interim agreement with the Palestinian leadership." Very cute. But wait a minute. Perhaps the reporter could tell us what percentage of the West Bank villagers live under Israeli rule in Area C. If we are talking about villages (not the town of Hebron) I would suspect the answer would not be much above 1 percent. But wait, the article continues: "On that land are Israel's 121 West Bank settlements, as well as military bases. But so are 150 Palestinian villages, home to tens of thousands of people." So which is it? The answer is that even if villages are located in Area C, local control in most cases belongs to the PA, not Israel. Note the deliberate dishonesty: yes, lots of land is in Area C but by the Oslo agreement's design Israel has full control over unpopulated land. Virtually all the villages are under Palestinian Authority (PA) rule. And by the way, what is the housing situation for 99 percent of the West Bank villages? I would bet that they either have to pay off PA officials or just do what they want without regard to regulations. But in one of the two sentences in which Israeli officials are allowed to speak, we get an interesting hint about that: "Maj. Peter Lerner, an Israeli military spokesman, said demolition orders are usually issued early in cases of illegal construction, but are often ignored by residents." So in fact Israel does not try to enforce these orders most of the time. Why would Israeli authorities try to stop buildings from being constructed? The article tells us it is pure meanness or because it wants to take lands in future. But the overwhelming main reason for such denials is that the buildings would be close to roads or in other strategic locations where they could be used for ambushes. We aren't told this, in fact there is no mention of the fact that the Palestinian side is carrying out a war on Israel involving terrorism, which makes conditions significantly different than in a peaceful environment. To a large extent, this article is merely an extended version of an interview with the village's mayor who is allowed to say whatever he wants, no matter how fantastic. For example, he says: "Since Israel occupied the West Bank in 1967 eight villagers have been killed by stray bullets or by picking up unexploded munitions, and 42 have been wounded. The Israeli military could not confirm those numbers." Now there are 299 people in the village. We are to believe that 50 of them –– which would in practice mean one person in each family –– has been killed or wounded by Israeli bullets. Is there any documentation for this? Are there any newspaper clippings, reports to humanitarian organizations, etc? And if so why aren't these cited. I feel confident in suggesting that the mayor is lying and that the reporter is going along with the lies. As an Arab proverb goes: "How do you know it is a lie? Because it is so big." Or this one: "Aqabeh Mayor Sami Sadiq says Israeli officials told residents in 2004 that only buildings in the center, on 3 percent of the village's land area, would be safe from demolition. If all demolitions are carried out, two-thirds of the village's residents would be left homeless, he said." Well, did they or is this a propaganda fantasy? The important thing to remember here is the test of logic. The village must be many decades, even centuries, old. So does this mean that 97 percent of the village dates from the last few years? It appears to be nonsense. The article states, "Sadiq has been confined to a wheelchair since being hit by three stray bullets while cultivating his family's land in 1971, he said." Well, it should have been easy for the reporter to check this out since he would have filed compensation claims with the Israeli government. There would be documentation. Sadiq's credibility doesn't strike me as being too good: "In the past four decades, some 700 residents have left Aqabeh because of the many troubles, he said, mostly moving to neighboring villages outside of Area C that have approved zoning plans and where it is easier to build." So there were 1,000 residents and now there are 300 but –– let's use our brains, people –– if that were true the village wouldn't need to be expanding, would it? Seventy percent of its housing would be empty. It would look like a ghost town. So why didn't the reporter mention this? Why go on with more examples? This is nonsense on the face of it. In a world where professional standards applied, AP would be humiliated at making mistakes unacceptable in a high school newspaper. The reporter would be immediately fired and a stern memo sent to all staff members on avoiding such stupidities in future. I must be an old fogey because I keep expecting things like this to happen. And what really scares me is that I didn't even have to go hunting to find such propaganda masquerading as journalism –– it was the first article I read in a 25-page compilation of AP stories. 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 |
|
UNICEF REJECT LEVIEV CASH DUE TO JUDEA, SAMARIA SUPPORT
Posted by Avodah, June 21, 2008. |
|
This is a news item from Arutz-7
|
|
(IsraelNN.com) The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) announced Friday that the organization would no longer accept donations from Israeli billionaire businessman Lev Leviev because the latter invests in Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. However, in the past the international organization has been criticized for supporting radical Arab organizations such as the Palestinian Youth Association for Leadership and Rights Activation, demonizing Israel during the 2006 Second Lebanon War. At least one UNICEF official has also been described as "agent of Palestinian terrorist propaganda" by the esteemed Simon Wiesenthal Center. Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com |
|
BLIND HATRED
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, June 20, 2008. |
|
All of the Muslim Arabs in 1948 (and for decades before) swore to attack the Jews –– and later the newly born State of Israel and kill every Jew. They did attack with 7 armies and they lost in a humiliating defeat against untrained Jews, many cadaverous Holocaust survivors without weapons. The Muslim Arabs 'Lost' the Land they gambled away and called it their nakba (catastrophe). (They didn't adopt the name "Palestinians" until 1967.) While the Jews were (reluctantly) ready to accept the 1947 partition plan of the U.N., the Muslims rejected it and, therefore they 'Lost' the Land the U.N. had voted for them. Then in 1956, Egypt's President Gamal Abdul Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, threatening Israeli, French and British shipping –– as well as closing the Straits of Tiran through which Israel's oil shipments from Iran transitted. This was a casus belli (an act of war). Egypt had also received a huge arms shipment from the U.S.S.R. Nasser vowed (again) to eliminate the Jews. (1) The Arab Muslim countries' leaders and the religious Mullahs incited the Muslims, telling them they would soon "dance in the blood of the Jews". The Jewish Israelis won that war (although President Ike Eisenhower forced the British, French and Israelis to retreat). The Arab Muslims continued their ongoing Terrorism and massive arming. But, Israel won the next 5 wars (1967, 1969-70, 1973, 1982, 1991). Every time the Arab Muslims vowed to kill all the Jews and to confiscate their assets and Land. The attacking countries of Egypt, Syria and (in 1967) Jordan promised to keep the Jews' Land as permanent occupiers. Between wars, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim despots funded, trained and armed Terrorists to keep up a war of Terror –– called Low Intensity War...(tell that to its victims)! Today's question is: Why must Israel, under unrelenting pressure from the U.S., from Europe, give up Land given by G-d to the Jewish people in perpetuity? The Muslim Arabs have 22 states already, covering more than 6 million square miles. The total states of the Muslim world have a majority (usually over 80%) with a world total of 52 states, covering altogether 11 million square miles. (2) What right do the nations of the world have to tell Israel that, having survived 7 wars of in which the Muslim Arabs pledged annihilation that the Land given by G-d and defended in those wars of survival must be given to a hostile Muslim world who still vow to kill them all? According to Dr. Samuel P. Huntington, Professor at Harvard, in his 'CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS & THE REMAKING OF WORLD ORDER' he says: "The rise of Western power took 400 years. Its recession could take [a long time]...[because] The open democratic societies of the West have great capacities for renewal...,.[However,] The West's share of most...of the important power resources peaked early in the 20th Century and then became to decline relative to those of other civilizations .... At the peak of its territorial expansion in 1920, the West directly ruled about 25.5 million square miles or close to half the earth's earth. By 1993 this territorial control had been cut in half to about 12.7 million square miles. "The territory of independent Islamic societies, in contrast, rose from 1.8 million square miles in 1920 to over 11 million square miles by 1997....In terms of total population, in 1993 the West ranked fourth behind the Chinese, Islamic and Hindu civilizations." (3) The Muslim Arabs gambled away any rights they might put forward in their furious rage against a Jewish State. Their primitive hatred of Jews goes back to the 7th century, when Mohammed brutalized the Jews, Christians and any other people who refused to bow down to worship their moon god, zin –– later to be called Allah. That ideology remains today and has gained new energy, as they plainly say that all the nations of the world must adopt Allah and Islam. Their oft-spoken goal is to conquer with force and create a World Caliphate, ruled by Islam. Why bestow any more Land on a savage people who butchered their way through the centuries in the belief that they had both the right and the obligation to kill "infidels" (non-Muslims)? Why listen to American Arabists, either in the White House or the U.S. State Department, who press Israel to appease these pagan killers? One can understand the Europeans recommending that the Jews simply surrender, given that their record of butchery, torture, confiscation of property, hatred by the Church against the Jews, makes it a habit they don't know how to change or think they ought to –– break. Some things just don't change. It's not surprising to see the Bush, Rice, Baker team bond with the oil nations against Israel's life-and-death sovereignty. Condoleezza Rice clearly has a gaggle of dumb advisors who urge her in the direction they want her to go but, she accepts their hostile advice and then adds her own bias from her childhood. As a child, Condi Rice saw what southern white bigots did to the blacks. One of the 4 girls blown up in the Birmingham Church was reportedly a friend of hers. She carried this trauma through to her adulthood. She 'adopted' the Muslim Arab Palestinians Terrorists and Arab Muslims in general as analogous to the blacks of her youth. (She has said so; we're not making this up.) Then Rice, like other blacks, did a psychological transference and made the Jews of Israel analogous to the white trash of her youth. (If you've forgotten this sordid bit of American history, rent the movie "Mississippi Burning" with Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe to remind you how bad it really was –– now that it is hidden away from view.) Rice, like other blacks of today, has an inner compulsion to "get even" with someone and there were simply too many whites to attack safely. So Rice (and others) seem to have chosen the "Chosen" people –– the minuscule community of "white" Jews in Israel (although the Jews of Israel who were exiled 2000 years ago –– have returned from at least 70 countries of the world and are every color of the rainbow –– including black Ethiopians.) Sounds crazy but, that's probably why there is a known infamous cabal of blacks like Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Idi Amin (in his time), Cong. John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan, and other blacks who have chosen to become Black Muslims. African-Americans in prison have been easily recruited to become Muslims and the front line in black hatred against "infidels" (non-Muslims) as well as whites. Blacks (or, if you prefer, the latest PC, Politically Correct term: African-Americans) are ignorant of Islam's contempt for Blacks. Muslims usually referring to them as low people, worthy only to be slaves. In fact, it was usually the Muslim slave raiders who captured the black Africans, sold them to the slavers on ships to become slaves in North America. By the way, the Muslims are still enslaving the Blacks (both men and women) in many countries of Africa. But, the U.N., under pressure from the Arab Bloc (especially the Saudis) doesn't want to address this vile practice. Tell that to a black who is or wants to become a Muslim and he will tell you it's a lie. But, they may not have read the Koran in Arabic with its numerous insults and contempt for blacks –– as well as Jews. Granted, Muslims, Arabs, Islamists hate the Jews with a savagery you cannot imagine. Muslims, like ignorant, poor blacks cannot see themselves as a low, uneducated, unproductive people. They view themselves as superior because (it feels better) and they worship a moon god once called Zin, now called Allah. Muslims want to be considered a great people. But they are not except for their skill at killing people –– and because of their Black Gold (oil), they can extort vast quantities of treasure from all the countries and peoples of the world. Doesn't that make them superior? I think not! Condoleezza Rice fits into this crowd and she hates –– with a smile –– but with a bitter tongue. One is reminded of Barack Obama. All this psychological bitterness is there within him (and his wife Michelle) but it will not fully surface until Obama and Michelle come to their full power IF they gain the White House. Is Barack Hussein Obama a Muslim or a half Black man? His handlers are trying very hard to hide his true background but, it does seep out. Muslims will consider him a Muslim because his father was a Muslim. In Islam, if your father is a Muslim, you are a Muslim. Your religion is determined through patrilineal descent. Is it not surprising that Arab and Muslim nations are cheering the prospect of Obama and Michelle becoming the driving force in the White House? If Muslims consider him a Muslim who is now denying his faith in order to get elected, then he is at great risk of being assassinated for what Koranic law would consider his heresy. This is the main issue. How he views himself and others outside his faith, whatever it may be, will determine how he treats Jews and Israel. His speech at the AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) was brilliantly written (probably by a very good Jewish speech-writer) and very well delivered by Obama, who is an excellent orator. But, speaking skills do not generate the judgement and experience necessary for America's Chief of State and top world leader. One becomes accustomed to blacks' hatred without reason –– of Jews. But, Rice, given the position she has been awarded by the Bush family, is a different matter entirely. Rice has no problem evacuating Jews from the Land given to them by a G-d she doesn't believe in. She would be pleased to uproot thousands of Jewish men, women and children from their homes and gardens, farms and factories, schools and synagogues –– and cemeteries. She has bitter accusations against any Jews building in Judea, Samaria or Jerusalem –– because the Muslim Arab Palestinians want these areas for their state. From Condoleezza Rice on June 14th regarding proposed building of 1300 homes in the Jerusalem suburb of Ramat Shlomo: "Ongoing Israeli construction in areas the Palestinians want for their future state has the potential to harm the negotiations." (4) How can we accept this blind biased hatred? What god do you believe in, Condi? Is it Allah; or is it the Jew Jesus? Or, surely, it must some sort of a pagan deity who will appreciate your vicious hatred of the Jewish people and their precious Land G-d gave to them. ### 1. "The Art of Strategic Counterintelligence –– CIA:
The Musketeer's Cloak: Strategic Deception During the Suez Crisis of
1956" by Ricky-Dale Calhoun
2. "Majority Muslim Countries" Wikipedia (mostly from the CIA World
Factbook)
3. "THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS & THE REMAKING OF WORLD ORDER" by Samuel P. Huntington, Chapter 4 4. "Rice: W. Bank building may harm talks" by Mark Weiss & AP JERUSALEM POST June 14, 2008 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
|
|
ISRAEL'S DARKEST WEEK
Posted by Avodah, June 20, 2008. |
|
This was written by Caroline Glick in the The Jerusalem
Post and it is archived at |
|
The Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government's liquidation sale of Israel's strategic assets opened officially this week. Iran's proxies have pounced on the merchandise. The first asset sold was the security of southern Israel. The Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government's "cease-fire" with Hamas transferred all power to determine the fate of the residents of southern Israel to Iran's Palestinian proxy. Under the "agreement," Hamas will refrain from attacking Sderot, Ashkelon, Netivot and surrounding kibbutzim for as long as it serves its interests. Since temporarily halting its attacks on southern Israel is the only thing that Hamas has agreed to do, it will use the lull in fighting to build up its arsenal and its military infrastructures in Gaza. When it has built up its forces sufficiently, or when its Iranian overlords give it the order, Hamas will again attack southern Israel. And when it reengages, it can be assumed that it will do so with a vastly expanded missile range. So under the guise of the "cease-fire," Hamas will place hundreds of thousands more Israelis at its mercy. The Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government's agreement with Hamas does more than sell out the security of the South. The agreement also divests Israel of its former ability to isolate Hamas diplomatically. Fatah's renewal of negotiations toward reconciling with Hamas is a direct consequence of Israel's actions. As these talks unfold, it is clear to all concerned that they will not lead to any sort of power sharing agreement between the two parties. Hamas today holds all the power in Palestinian society. Israel's acceptance of Hamas's power over the safety of Israeli citizens only amplified this fact. Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas –– who cannot even travel to Nablus without IDF protection –– is not approaching Hamas as an equal, but as a supplicant. Moreover, Israel's willingness to allow Gazans to enter Israel, and its acceptance of Hamas's control over the Rafah international terminal that separates Gaza from Egypt, constitutes de facto Israeli recognition of the Hamas regime in Gaza. And the direct consequence of Israel's diplomatic and strategic capitulation to Hamas is that no one in either the Arab world or the West today will agree to isolate or boycott Hamas. But the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government apparently doesn't care. Israel's leaders actually don't want anyone to isolate or boycott Hamas anymore. The government's reported negotiations regarding the deployment of an all-Arab "peacekeeping" force in Gaza in a later phase of the "cease-fire"make clear that Israel is pushing for Hamas's international legitimization. Afterall, unlike Israel, Hamas would never allow any government that doesn't recognize its legitimacy to deploy forces in its territory or along its borders. So any Arab force that deployed in Gaza or along Gaza's borders would have to recognize Hamas's regime. Beyond that, of course, Israel's advocacy of such a force indicates that the government has no interest in ever confronting Hamas militarily and is ready to tie the hands of any future Israeli government to do so since the presence of Arab forces in Gaza will render it much more difficult for Israel to defend itself. For if such a force is deployed, any future counter-terror operation in Gaza is liable to cause casualties among foreign Arab soldiers and so risk escalating the conflict to the level of regional war. Israel's decision to embrace Hamas is so outrageous that even the US State Departmentapparently hasn't had a chance to get its bearings. Reacting to the news on Wednesday, State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey said, "Saying you've got a loaded gun to my head but you're not going to fire today is far different from taking the gun down, locking it up, and saying you're not going to use it again." The agreement "hardly takes Hamas out of the terrorism business," Casey added. The "cease-fire" with Hamas also has direct implications for Judea and
Samaria. If Hamas holds its fire for six months, then Israel will be obliged
to end its counter-terror operations in Judea and Samaria. That is, if Hamas
keeps its powder dry until January, Israel will effectively enable it to
assert its control over Judea and Samaria and so place Iran in control of
the outskirts of Jerusalem, Kfar Saba, Afula and Netanya.
IF THE US was aghast at the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government's capitulation to Hamas, UN officials are aghast at its second asset drop. This week the government conducted its second round of negotiations toward the surrender of the Golan Heights to Syria. Speaking of the surrender talks toa group of Israeli diplomats, Terje Roed-Larsen, the UN Secretary General's Special Envoy for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1559, condemned the move, arguing just by holding the negotiations, "Israel has given Syria a huge gift, without thus far receiving anything in exchange." Larsen continued bitterly, "Syria is receiving legitimacy for free. Europe is courting the Syrians because of the negotiations with Israel, and they are no longer being asked to give anything in exchange." Indeed, far from moderating their behavior, the Syrians seem only to have strengthened their already intimate ties with Iran since Israel initiated the surrender talks last month. Reacting to the second round of talks, Iran's Ambassador to Syria, Sayyed Ahmed Moussavi, told a German news agency that Iranian-Syrian ties have strengthened still further over the past four months. Moussavi, who also serves as a general in Iran's Revolutionary Guards and as a senior adviser to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, hinted that Iranis planning on sharing its nuclear arsenal with Syria. As he put it, "Islam taught us to pass on our knowledge and we can pass our [nuclear] experienceto Syria if it wants it." In its rush to obliterate Israel's defensive positions, the
Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government apparently doesn't care that Iran
may well attack Israel with nuclear warheads launched from a
post-withdrawal Golan Heights. What is most important to the government
is to make Syria look good. And so, following the second round of
negotiations with the Syrians, Olmert practically got down on his hands
and knees to beg Assad to meet with him face to face when they visit
Paris together next month. The two have been invited by French
President Nicholas Sarkozy to participate in the launch of his
Mediterranean Union initiative on July 13. Assad, no doubt enjoying the
moment, rejected Olmert's pleas. As Larsen warned, Assad has no reason
to pay for something he is already getting for free.
APPARENTLY, THE Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government couldn't suffice with capitulation on three fronts in one week. And so it moved to a fourth one. Far from displaying alarm or anger over US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's decision to visit Beirut and give the US's blessing to the new Hizbullah-controlled Lebanese government, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert joined her defeatist bandwagon. He announced that he wishes to open negotiations with Iran's Lebanese proxy and to that end he is willing to surrender strategically critical Mount Dov –– or what Hizbullah refers to as Shaba Farms –– to Hizbullah. So eager is Olmert to surrender, that even after Hizbullah's puppet Prime Minister Fuad Saniora rejected his offer, he reiterated it. Like Assad and Hamas, Hizbullah sees no reason to honor Olmert and his colleagues with direct talks. As Hizbullah parliamentarian Nawar Sahili said this week, "If they really want to give us back our land, they can withdraw." Finally, there is the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government's handling of the Israelis oldiers being held hostage by Hamas and Hizbullah. The government agreed to the "cease-fire" with Hamas without securing Gilad Schalit's release from captivity. Rather than acknowledge that they have likely signed his death warrant, the government insists that it's not done capitulating. It will begin begging Hamas to accept hundreds of Palestinian murderers jailed in Israeli prisons in exchange for Schalit next Tuesday. As for Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, who were kidnapped to Lebanon by Hizbullah two years ago and haven't been heard from since, the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government is poised to spring arch-murderer Samir Kuntar from prison together with three other Hizbullah terrorists in exchangefor their release –– dead or alive. In a naked attempt to divert the public's attention away from its surrender
drive,Thursday morning the government initiated a violent confrontation
with Israeli residents of Samaria by ordering the destruction of homes in
the community of Yitzhar. In other words, while surrendering to Iranian
proxies on four fronts, the government has turned its guns against Israeli
citizens.
THE GOVERNMENT'S actions no doubt increase prospects for a major war. But beyond that, it is important to note that Israel is discarding its strategic assets in the face of the burgeoning threat of nuclear annihilation. No doubt buoyed by the government's strategic incapacitation, Iran mockingly told the Europeans that it will be happy to consider their European-American offer to build Iran nuclear reactors and normalize relations with it –– so long as it is understood that they will accept their largesse while continuing their uranium enrichment activities. In Israel's 60-year history, there is no precedent for the government's actionsthis week. And if history is any guide, Israel can only expect more of the same in the government's remaining time in office –– however long that mightbe. Until Olmert was elected prime minister in 2006, Defense Minister Ehud Barak enjoyed the distinction of being the worst prime minister in Israeli history. And Barak's behavior in his waning days in power is instructive for understanding what we can expect from Olmert and Livni and Barak today. In July 2000, after he lost a no-confidence vote in the Knesset, Barak went toCamp David and shot for the moon, offering PLO chieftain Yasser Arafat a statein all of Gaza, 90 percent of Judea and Samaria and parts of Jerusalem. Arafat rejected his offer and went to war. Facing the rejection ofthe Israeli electorate at the polls, rather than curtail his capitulation efforts, Barak redoubled them. As Arafat's soldiers were busy blowing up buses and lynching Israeli soldiers, Barak offered Arafat still more land in Judeaand Samaria and the Temple Mount. And today, with Barak at his side, Olmert –– who similarly has been rejected by the electorate –– is repeating Barak's move fourfold. And he can be expected to continue on this course until elections are held and he is sent packing. Next week the Knesset is expected to vote on a motion to disband and move to general elections. It is far from clear that the vote will pass. Barak and his Labor Party may well decide that capitulation suits them just fine and remainon board Olmert and Livni's sinking ship. As the Israeli public stares at the wreckage and danger that has marked this disastrous week, hopefully it understands that this is what happens when we elect bad leaders. All of this was eminently predictable in 2006 when Kadima and Labor both ran for office on capitulationist platforms. Choices have consequences. And we will be suffering with the consequences of the 2006 elections until its winners are finally thrown from office. Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com |
|
A TRUCE AGREEMENT WITH HAMAS FOLLOWING "A FAILURE WORSE THAN THE SECOND LEBANON WAR"
Posted by Eli E. Hertz, June 20, 2008. |
|
This was written by Dr. Joel Fishman, a Fellow of a research center in Jerusalem. Contact him by email by writing to joel.fishman@gmail.com |
|
On Tuesday evening, June 17th, the Egyptian government announced that a truce agreement between Israel and the Hamas in Gaza would commence at 6 A.M. on Thursday, June 19. This understanding means essentially that Israel indirectly recognizes and is negotiating with a terrorist organization dedicated to its destruction. Earlier in the week, there were acrimonious debates and exchanges of recriminations regarding the question whether or not Israel should enter Gaza with massive armed force in order to bring an end to acts of terror which include the launching rockets and mortars against the civilian population of the Western Negev and of Askelon. On June 16 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement informing the public that "the very fact that Hamas carried out a violent coup against the more pragmatic Palestinian Authority, led by Abu Mazen, proves that they are not willing to participate in the process of achieving peace through compromise between Israel and the Palestinian Authority that was sarted in 1993 with the Oslo Accords." It is likely that any arrangement with the Hamas will be temporary and last only as long as it suits them. In exchange for an undetermined pause in hostilities, Israel plans to give up the advantages of relative military strength, while its enemy prepares for the next round, training its forces, building fortifications, and smuggling in new weapons. The prototype for this transaction was the Truce of Hudaybiyyah of 628 CE which Muhammad signed with the Quraish tribe of Mecca at a time when his forces were relatively weak. Later, when he gained more followers, he broke the treaty and defeated this tribe. According to the website, Israel Forum, "This truce became a model and a precedent in Islamic law for all agreements with infidels, never lasting more than ten years (with the possibility of another ten years extension, no more)." Within a broader perspective, the major objective of any guerilla movement, as Mao once wrote, is simply to stay in existence. In this respect, the State of Israel has been needlessly helpful to the Hamas. The implications of the alternative policy choices: a truce or possible military actions in Gaza have not been the subject of a serious public debate, and some of the main issues have been obfuscated. Also, the tendency of the media to present recent developments mainly in the perspective of the present, as if they were entirely new, is misleading. About a year ago today, on June 20th 2007, Israel lost Ze'ev Schiff, one of its finest military analysts. Twelve days before his passing, one of his last articles, "An Israeli Defeat in Sderot," appeared in Ha'aretz. Although a year has passed, his article has reatined its value. If Schiff were alive today, he could have written the same article with only minor changes. Some of his conclusions are as follows: 1. Israel has been defeated in Sderot; More rockets have fallen on Sderot since Ze'ev Schiff first wrote, and more mortars have fallen on the surrounding region. Several Grad missiles have hit Ashkelon. People are leaving some of the areas near the Gaza border. It is noteworthy that Schiff's description of defeat was closely associated in his mind with the government's abandoning the traditional "core values" of Israeli society. He also called the situation a "national disgrace." The government of Israel has been slow to act effectively against Hamas terror, particularly the launching of rockets and mortars on Jewish towns and agricultural settlements. One of the reasons is that both the government and the army have been unable to respond to the challenge of political warfare. Although the army has done fairly well with the logistics and creative problem solving relating to combat in densely populated areas, as was the case with Jenin in 2002, it has made the mistake of "taking the purely military viewpoint." The army and the political leadership failed to defend Israel's legitimacy and the exercise of the sovereign right to protect its own civilian population. This failure has become painfully apparent as Israel finds itself in a state of protracted conflict. In the past, the State of Israel insisted on the principle of accountability in its dealings with regimes which allowed their territories to be used as a staging point for terror. At present, it is clear that the State has given up its traditional policy of making others pay the price for terror against Israeli civilian populations. Indeed, the fact that Israel has not insisted upon its legitimate claims in the war of words and ideas represents a serious omission on the part of the government. Under the present circumstances, a massive military operation in Gaza could be a serious mistake. The population is heavily armed and the area is densely populated. Further, there is also no compelling reason for Israel to incur losses in order to make way for the weak and discredited regime of Abu Mazen. If long-term results are to be achieved in Gaza, it is necessary to bring about a fundamental regime change in the spirit of the American occupation of Germany and Japan after World War II. It would be necessary to remake and reform the Hamas institutions of civil and political society and create a totally new entity not associated either with the Palestinian Authority or with the Muslim Brotherhood. A new basic law would have to replace the Hamas Charter. This endeavor would require sustained police action; legal reform, rebuilding the judiciary, and the education system; political purges, censorship of the press and of the sermons in the mosques; and the rewriting of school textbooks. Such a program would place upon Israel the responsibility to provide for the health, welfare and feeding of the civilian population of Gaza, a heavy burden which is beyond its capability and resources. It is likely that the new truce agreement will not result in a cessation of hostilities. Since this understanding will enable the enemy to prepare for the next round, Israel must also prepare for the worst case scenario. What is left, effectively, is the option of deterrence. Israel should launch a permanent and effective information campaign in order to safeguard its right to defend itself and to discredit the enemy. It should endeavor continuously to undermine the support of the Gaza population for the Hamas regime and to the extent possible, gain some understanding in the Arab world. It is inconceivable that a terrorist organization engaged in the murder of Israeli civilians should benefit from rights conferred by international law. Thus, Israel must be prepared to stand up against heavy international pressure. In combination with a vigorous information campaign, Israel must be prepared to employ measures of forceful deterrence and r etaliation. Certain military options, such as artillery and rocket attacks, aerial operations, as well as targeted assassinations, may be employed to convince the other side that any attack on Israeli civilians will result in costly and painful consequences. 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 eli@mythsandfacts.org |
|
IS ISRAELI HOUSING ENDANGERING THE PEACE PROCESS?
Posted by Devin Sper and Sivan Raine, June 20, 2008. |
|
Once again Israel is being blamed in advance for the inevitable failure of another round of Middle East diplomacy. It is incumbent on all of us concerned with Israel's image in the world that we not leave such accusations unchallenged. The latest criticism comes from U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Speaking at a press conference hosted by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on June 15th, Rice maintained that: "Israel's persistent building of Jewish homes on disputed land undermines the U.S.-backed attempt to write an Israeli-Palestinian peace draft this year and invites questions about Israel's motives, Israel must understand the pall its actions cast over talks and on the confidence of the United States, European nations and others that Israel is bargaining in good faith." We have heard similar criticism of Israel so often over the last 30 years that it has become the background noise of Middle East diplomacy. Nevertheless, we ignore such statements at our own risk. In essence, statements like Rice's seek to lay the blame, in advance, for the inevitable failure of the latest round of the peace process on irrelevant Israeli actions and not on the plan's inherent conceptual flaws. Although demonstrably false, the constant repetition of such accusations has and will have serious long term consequences for Israel's international reputation and diplomatic room for maneuver. To accept Condoleezza Rice's statement that Israel is negotiating in bad faith, one must accept not only the false dichotomy of land for peace but also that Israel must unavoidably hand over any and all land her enemies covet; including Jerusalem (the location of the building permits to which Rice refers). In other words, we must believe that Israel does not really want peace because she permits the building of badly needed homes in her capitol city. We must further suspend reason and believe that even if Israel were to give part of Jerusalem over to some other sovereignty, Jews should not be permitted to live in certain neighborhoods of their holy city. Is this the supposed "peace" we are striving for? Rice went on to say that she believes "that the actions and the announcements that are taking place are indeed having a negative effect on the atmosphere for the negotiation." Are we really to believe that Israeli housing is the primary reason for the negative atmosphere in the area? Might not the Palestinian's election of Hamas, labeled by Rice's own State Department as a terrorist organization, with their open rejection of all previously signed peace agreements and daily violations of them have more to do with the hostile atmosphere? Are not six years of Palestinian missile attacks on Israeli towns an impediment to peace negotiations? Thousands of missiles reigned down on the citizens of Galilee by Hezbollah in direct contradiction of the Geneva Convention are not more detrimental to an atmosphere of peace? The unprovoked kidnapping and continued captivity of Israelis by both Hamas and Hezbollah violate no tenant of diplomacy? East Jerusalem, which includes the ancient Jewish Quarter in which Jews have lived for millennia and the holiest sights in Judaism, was annexed by the Knesset soon after the Six-Day War and has been sovereign Israeli territory ever since. The position of every Israeli government has remained consistent: Jews have the right to live anywhere they wish to in Israel's capitol city. To legislate otherwise would be a violation not only of Jewish sensibilities but of basic human rights. Regardless of our satisfaction with Olmert's government, it deserves credit for standing firm on this issue. It is of no consequence whether Rice sincerely believes her statement or made it merely to appease her Palestinian hosts. Jewish history teaches us that we ignore libel at our peril. There are too many governments around the world that will no doubt seize on Rice's criticism as justification for their continued vilification of Israel. Jerusalem and Zion is sacred not only to Israelis but to Jews everywhere and we ought not to remain silent in their defense. Devin Sper is a senior fellow at the Center for
Advanced Middle East Studies and author of The Future of
Israel, winner of a 2005 GLYPH award. He writes on the Center for
Advanced Middle East Studies (CAMES) website |
|
IRAN: LEADER OF THE SUNNI MOVEMENTS, SUPPORTER OF AL-QAEDA. ARE YOU SURPRISED?
Posted by Israel Zwick, June 20, 2008. |
|
This is by Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed and it appeared today in
Asharq Alawsat,
Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed is the general manager of Al-Arabiya television and the former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, and the leading Arabic weekly magazine, Al Majalla. He is also a senior columnist in the daily newspapers of Al Madina and Al Bilad. He is a US post-graduate degree in mass communications. He has been a guest on many TV current affairs programs. He is currently based in Dubai. |
|
Paradoxically, Iran, an extremist theocratic Shiite regime with Ahmadinejad at its helm, is orchestrating and funding the activities of extremist Sunnis in the region. The paradox is most striking in the case of Al-Qaeda, the most extremist Sunni organization, which has joined, in the full sense of the word, the Iranian apparatus. The alliance between the two enemies began in the wake of the defeat of Al-Qaeda and the organization's flight from Afghanistan to all Sunni countries. The first group of Al-Qaeda, which was led by Egyptian national Saif Al-Adel, and included Saad bin Laden, Osama bin Laden's son, fled to Iran immediately after the fall of the Taliban regime. I do not know whether the first group of Al-Qaeda entered Iran by mistake, after its members roamed aimlessly in the rugged mountainous region on the Pakistani-Afghan border, or as a result of contacts who arranged for the Iranian hosting. We were initially puzzled by the rumors that Iran had arrested a group of fleeing Al-Qaeda members who crossed its border from Afghanistan, only to realize later that the story had far deeper implications. The investigators of the attack that Al-Qaeda carried out in Riyadh found evidence indicating that the operation came from Iran and that the perpetrators were Al-Qaeda members. This was confirmed after satellite mobile telephone recordings were discovered between Saif Al-Adel and the Saudi commander of the group. The communication clearly showed that the call originated in Iran. Those concerned with this were surprised because Iran did not deny the call, but quickly admitted that it had a number of Al-Qaeda members in a certain prison. It justified the incident by saying that the group members perhaps broke the rules of their hosting. Crude though it was, the justification might have been deliberate. Perhaps Iran wanted to tell concerned parties that it was now in control of Al-Qaeda. In the past four years, the largest number of Al-Qaeda members have made Iran their headquarters. It has even been suggested that Ayman Al-Zawahiri, who some consider to be Al-Qaeda's actual leader, is also being hosted by Iran, as evidenced by his many relaxed audio and video statements, and especially his famous public criticism of the late Al-Qaeda agent in Iraq, Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, for attacking Shiites. Like any other extremist Sunni organization, Al-Qaeda does not consider Shiites and other Muslim sects to be Sunnis or followers of the Prophet's family, and therefore it must fight against them. I do not want to give further evidence of Iran's pragmatism. It is an extremist, theocratic Shiite regime that holds Sunnis as infidels. Proof of this is that Iran's followers committed massacres and evicted people from their homes in a way unprecedented in Iraq's history. Iran today wants to attain its goals regardless of the weapons used. It funds and sponsors all extremist Sunni groups like the Palestinian Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other extremist Sunni groups in north Lebanon and North Africa. It was recently suggested that Iran even supports the Sudanese Justice and Equality Movement, which attempted to stage a coup against Sudanese President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir's regime. I still doubt the veracity of this story. Regrettably, in politics Shiite and Sunni extremism and differences are being used. The differences between Shiites and Sunnis were originally acceptable in an ideological framework, although I maintain that differences are fabricated. I do not rule out the possibility of a dispute erupting in the future between Iran and Iraqi Shiites, because Tehran aims to dominate Iraq. If it tries to control Iraq, Iran will clash with major forces in Iraq. Those who wager on political sectarianism had better think hard before they are shocked by the realities of political opportunism. Contact Israel Zwick by email at israel.zwick@earthlink.net and visit his website: www.cnpublications.net |
|
MUSLIMS IN GERMANY: "THE QUIET SETTLING-IN PERIOD HAS BEEN REPLACED BY A LOUD AND DEMANDING PHASE"
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 20, 2008. |
|
This was written by Robert Spencer and it appeared in Jihad Watch
|
|
Muslims in Germany: "It appears the quiet settling-in period has been replaced by a loud and demanding phase"
In a long history of the presence of Muslims in Germany, Ursula Spuler-Stegemann, a professor of Islamic studies at the University of Marburg, rather offhandedly admits that Muslims are transforming German society along Sharia lines and have become "loud and demanding." She says this is just a "phase," although she should know, but does not mention, that this is entirely to be expected given the supremacist elements of Islam vis-à-vis the "People of the Book," the all-encompassing nature of Sharia (including its political elements), and the deeply traditional imperative to impose it, and not compromise upon it. But don't be concerned: Al-Qaeda is the only group with this ideology, and as Al-Qaeda implodes, the ideology is being discredited! Germany? Islamic supremacism in Germany? Preposterous –– it is all about Iraq! Go back to sleep! "How Islam Came to Germany," by Ursula Spuler-Stegemann in
Spiegel
Muslims have achieved a great deal and changed a number of things that many Germans once took for granted. Nowadays, there are women-only swimming days for Muslims with female supervisors, where the pool windows are draped with heavy curtains to prevent outsiders from peering inside. Crosses have been removed from many hospitals and schools, and special Islamic prayer rooms have been introduced to factories and public buildings. And there have been many other changes. Muslim parents now seek to exempt their daughters from overnight school field trips and co-ed sports classes. The question of whether public employees should be allowed to wear Islamic headscarves has been referred to the courts, along with the issue of religious studies in schools. Germany has already begun providing university education for its Muslim religious instruction teachers and imams. Since Muslims are the first immigrant group to come to Germany with a ready-made societal system and a supremacist notion that that system must one day replace the system of the infidels, those concerns are well founded. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
GOOD LYNCH, BAD LYNCH –– Haaretz DISPLAYS ITS INTEGRITY
Posted by Steven Plaut, June 20, 2008. |
|
1. AH, Haaretz, the Palestinian newspaper printed in Hebrew, the daily whose idea of "pluralism" is based on Brezhnev's Pravda, the newspaper in which Israel (and America) are always wrong and the Islamofascists are always right, the newspaper of Post-Zionism and Post-Judaism, where Israeli survival is an archaic idea whose time has past. Haaretz, or Al-Ard in Arabic, has for many years adopted the quaint custom of anti-Semitic newspapers elsewhere in referring to suicide bombers and mass murderers of Jews as "activists" and "militants." Yet suddenly, this week the "T" word appears on Haaretz' front page. "T" as in terrorist. How come? Well, the news story concerns Eden Natan-Zada, a mentally ill Israeli soldier (actually a deserter) who shot up Shfaram in October 2005 and killed several Druse and Arabs. Shfaram is about 40 minutes outside Haifa. He was then attacked by locals in the crowd who lynched him, killing him. Ever since, the Israeli Attorney General's office has been mulling over whether to prosecute the members of the mob who killed the by-then-disarmed Natan-Zada. This week, the prosecution decided not to prosecute. This is newsworthy because there have been cases in which Arab
terrorists were apprehended live after they murdered Jews and who were
then summarily executed by those who captured them. In every one of
these cases, those who dispatched the terrorhoids were prosecuted. The
most famous incident being the Bus 300 affair (see
Now after the Natan-Zada incident, I called for the prosecution NOT to indict those who killed the perp. I also insisted that killing terrorists should never be considered a crime, even when Jews kill captured Arab terrorists, and that the decision not to prosecute should be regarded as case precedent for ALL who kill terrorists, even when the killers are Jews. I thought that those who executed the terrorists in the Bus 300 affair should have been given medals. I am all in favor of lynching terrorists captured immediately after they commit mass murder. Now Haaretz is also in favor of such lynching, but only when the perp is a Jew and the victims Arabs. Haaretz is NEVER in favor of punishing Arab terrorists who murder Jews, and of course opposes the death penalty for terrorists. Which brings us to the Haaretz editorial in the very same issue (June 16) in which it cheers the decision by the AG not to indict the killers of Natan-Zada. Every second word referring to Natan-Zada in the Haaretz articles about the decision refer to him as a "terrorist." He of course was not, although he was a killer, and probably was not legally sane. In the very same issue, it runs an editorial demanding that a Jewish farmer in the Negev who shot Arab burglars who had broken into his small ranch be indicted! In January 2007 one Shai Dromi shot two Arabs who had broken into his homestead, trying to steal his sheep, and he killed one and injured the other. The Attorney General prosecuted him. The Knesset decided to take an uncharacteristic stand against this case of judicial activism and judicial tyranny by starting to pass (it already passed its "first reading") a special law, known in the media as the Shai Dromi Law, declaring that people who kill or injure burglars and intruders into their homes will not be prosecuted. The farm lobby took time off from lobbying for cheap water and subsidies to back the bill. Haaretz of course is outraged! This law would be nothing less than a "license to kill." (See http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/992997.html) What about their Miranda rights? I cite the editorial: 'The new law will lead to killing to no avail, and could include people accidentally harming members of their own family. True, a man's home is his castle, and he has to be granted the right of self-defense therein, but it is not permissible to shed the blood of someone who enters the house, even if he is a burglar. The place of thieves is in prison, but they must not be turned into the victims of executions. Nor is it reasonable to extend the rights granted to a person in his home to his yard, store or flock as well.' So when is it okay in Haaretz' opinion to kill intruders? When they are Jewish "intruders" in "Palestinian lands," of course! 2. "Israel's Truce With Hamas Is a Victory for Iran" by
Michael B. Oren in yesterday's Wall Street Journal at wsj.ltrs@wsj.com
Mr. Oren, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, is the author of Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present (Norton, 2008). Proponents of an Israeli-Palestinian accord are praising the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas that went into effect this morning. Yet even if the agreement suspends violence temporarily –– though dozens of Hamas rockets struck Israel yesterday –– it represents a historic accomplishment for the jihadist forces most opposed to peace, and defeat for the Palestinians who might still have been Israel's partners. The roots of this tragedy go back to the summer of 2005 and the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. The evacuation, intended to free Israel of Gaza's political and strategic burden, was hailed as a victory by Palestinian terrorist groups, above all Hamas. Hamas proceeded to fire some 1,000 rocket and mortar shells into Israel. Six months later Hamas gunmen, taking advantage of an earlier cease-fire, infiltrated into Israel, killed two soldiers, and captured Cpl. Gilad Shalit. Hamas's audacity spurred Hezbollah to mount a similar ambush against Israelis patrolling the Lebanese border, triggering a war in which Israel was once again humbled. Hamas now felt sufficiently emboldened to overthrow Gaza's Fatah-led government, and to declare itself regnant in the Strip. Subsequently, Hamas launched thousands more rocket and mortar salvos against Israel, rendering parts of the country nearly uninhabitable. In response, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) air strikes and limited ground incursions killed hundreds of armed Palestinians in Gaza, and Israel earned international censure for collateral civilian deaths and "disproportionate" tactics. Israel also imposed a land and sea blockade of Gaza, strictly controlling its supply of vital commodities such as a gasoline. But the policy enabled Hamas to hoard the fuel and declare a humanitarian crisis. Israel never mounted the rolling, multi-month operation that the IDF had planned. Traumatized by his abortive performance in the Lebanon War, hobbled by financial scandals, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert balked at a military engagement liable to result in incalculable casualties and United Nations condemnations, but unlikely to halt Hamas aggression. Like Hezbollah in 2006, Hamas won because it did not lose. Its leaders still walked Gaza's streets freely while children in Sderot and other Israeli border towns cowered in bomb shelters. Like Hezbollah, which recently wrested unprecedented powers from the Lebanese parliament, Hamas parlayed its military success into political capital. The European Parliament demanded the immediate lifting of the Gaza blockade, and France initiated secret contacts with Hamas officials. A minister from the Israeli Labor Party, Ami Ayalon, went a step further by calling for Hamas's inclusion in peace talks –– a recommendation soon echoed by Jimmy Carter and the New York Times. The Egyptian-brokered cease-fire yields Hamas greater benefits than it might have obtained in direct negotiations. In exchange for giving its word to halt rocket attacks and weapons smuggling, Hamas receives the right to monitor the main border crossings into Gaza and to enforce a truce in the West Bank, where Fatah retains formal control. If quiet is maintained, then Israel will be required to accept a cease-fire in the West Bank as well. The blockade will be incrementally lifted while Cpl. Shalit remains in captivity. Hamas can regroup and rearm. The Olmert government will have to go vast lengths to portray this arrangement as anything other than a strategic and moral defeat. Hamas initiated a vicious war against Israel, destroyed and disrupted myriad Israeli lives, and has been rewarded with economic salvation and international prestige. Tellingly, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who once declared Hamas illegal, will soon travel to Gaza for reconciliation talks. Mr. Abbas's move signifies the degree to which Hamas, with Israel's help, now dominates Palestinian politics. It testifies, moreover, to another Iranian triumph. As the primary sponsor of Hamas, Iran is the cease-fire's ultimate beneficiary. Having already surrounded Israel on three of its borders –– Gaza, Lebanon, Syria –– Iran is poised to penetrate the West Bank. By activating these fronts, Tehran can divert attention from its nuclear program and block any diplomatic effort. The advocates of peace between Israelis and Palestinians should recognize that fact when applauding quiet at any price. The cost of this truce may well be war. 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. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. Or write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il |
|
IT IS A VERY VERY GOOD LAND
Posted by David Wilder, June 20, 2008. |
|
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT:
The family of Yossi Shimoni has informed us that with G-d's help
they were able to raise the necessary funds for Yossi's medical
treatment and have asked to refrain for further contributions.
However, they have asked that people continue to pray for the
recovery and good health of Yosef Chaim ben Mazal Tov. Thank you!
|
|
Tomorrow we'll read the Torah story of twelve spies, 10 of whom slandered Eretz Yisrael, preferring remain in the desert rather than continue on to the Land promised to Avraham, Yitzhak and Ya'akov as well as to the rest of the people as they left Egypt on their way to the Holy Land. That illness, infecting our national body, is still trying to eat away at the Jewish people. We witness this unfortunately, every day, with proposed 'piece plans' which are based upon the principal of 'land for piece.' If these offers were authentic –– attempting to achieve real peace, in other words, the Arabs agreeing to leave Israel for one of the 22 Islamic countries in the Middle East, or anywhere else in the world, we might be able to relate to them seriously. But as we all know, 'land for piece' is a one way street. Israel is expected to relinquish its homeland for promises written on paper, worth nothing more than that. We experience such 'spy stories' all the time here in Hebron. Attempts to expel us from our homes and property, Jewish homes, purchased or constructed, continue uninterrupted. We are still considered to be an 'obstacle to peace.' Not too long ago a group from one of our illustrious government offices visited Hebron. Standing at Ma'rat HaMachpela, discussing various possible improvements at the site, one of the young attorneys suddenly exclaimed, "but there's a problem here because Ma'arat HaMachpela is registered as belonging to the Waqf, the Muslim religious trust, (the same people who prevented Jews and Christians from accessing this holy site for 700 years). One of those present from Hebron replied, "!I seem to recall someone else registered here, even before Muhammad –– I believe Abraham was his name." Classic spy. Just like those who cannot comprehend the value of a bunch of rocks taking precedent to peace. After all, that's what the Wall is, a wall of stones. Right? For years 'the left' as we call them here, have been trying to infiltrate Hebron. Some of them are actually officially recognized by the State of Israel. TIPH, an internationally-affiliated observer organization is certainly anti-Israel, anti-Hebron, and might also be labeled anti-Semitic. I've written a number of articles about them over the years, the last of which was posted a few weeks ago. However, they're not the only ones. Other foreign organizations, like CPT, invaded Hebron over a decade ago, aiding and abetting the enemy, assisting them however possible, while ignoring any Jewish rights or claims to Hebron. Without almost any prior knowledge about Hebron they had decided who were the 'good guys' and who were the 'bad guys' even before the plane landed. Over the past few years, and particularly following the expulsion from Gush Katif, the Israeli left put Hebron in their sights. Organizations such as Breaking the Silence and Bnei Avraham have been described by Hebron police as being 'more dangerous that the extreme right.' Their stated goals are 'educational tours' of Hebron, but their actual aim is the destruction of Hebron's Jewish community. Funded by the European Union, the British embassy, and others, including left-wing Jewish organizations, groups they bring into Hebron are taken to Arab houses where they view plays about Jewish-'settler' oppression of 'poor palestinians' and hear various and numerous lies about the 'ethnic cleansing' of Hebron. (What the visitors are not told is that in reality it is the Jews who are being 'ethnically cleansed' from Hebron, not the Arabs.) It is clear that the European Union is not funding Yehuda Shaul (as
reported by an article by Donald Macintyre in the Independent on April
19 Spies, spies and more spies. But, and this is a big but –– we have to remember that even amongst the spies there were two who rejected the rejection of Eretz Yisrael by their seeming compatriots. Joshua and Kalev stood up against the others and proclaimed: Eretz Yisrael is very very good. It is written that Kalev arrived in Hebron to worship at Ma'arat HaMachpela, and the spiritual energy he absorbed there allowed him to remain firm in his belief of a strong Jewish presence in the Land of Israel. He overcame the evil shortcomings of the ten spies who preferred the desert to the land. Why did the spies reject Eretz Yisrael? Many reasons are given, but the one that seems to make the most sense is written in the holy Zohar. The spies, leaders of their people, realized that in Israel a new generation would take command and they would be retired from their leadership positions. They preferred their comfort to the good of the Jewish people. For that they were severely punished. The rest of the people, who believed their slander, spent the next forty years in the desert as punishment for their lack of faith. And more significantly, the impressions of their rejection of Eretz Yisrael has remained with us, through the present. However, just as Kalev and Joshua were a minority, but were right and were rewarded for their courage, and the Jews did finally come into Israel, so too today, the right will overcome the seeming might. All of those who believe, as they should, in the Jewish G-d-given right and legitimacy to Eretz Yisrael will be rewarded to see the fruits of their labor and those who believe the opposite will face the disgrace of the ten spies who rejected G-d's word. In the end, it's not the numbers that count, not the quantity, rather the quality wins out. No doubt, the quality of our land far outweighs the quality of those who prefer to pussyfoot with our enemies, whose desire is to again exile us and destroy the Jewish state of Israel. We will follow in the footsteps of the good spies –– Kalev and Yehoshua and repeat, time and time again: It is a very very good land. David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com |
|
"WE CEASE, THEY FIRE": ANATOMY OF LAST YEAR'S CEASEFIRE DISASTER
Posted by HaDaR, June 20, 2008. |
|
This was written by Noam Bedein April 27, 2008 and it appeared in
Arutz-7
Noam Bedein is Director of the Regional News Service for Sderot & the
Western Negev, a project of the Sderot Information Center for the
Western Negev, Ltd,
|
|
The Anatomy of Last Year's Ceasefire Disaster That Everyone Has Forgotten About "Hamas could learn both positive and negative lessons from the last round of escalation. On the positive side, it succeeded in consistently and systematically launching rockets at Israel, extending the rockets' range to Ashkelon, and it had victories in the battle for hearts and minds." –– from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center's (ITIC) summary of the recent escalation of rocket terror There is talk circulating about the opportunity to communicate and reach an understanding with Hamas, to give Hamas a chance to foster a ceasefire with Israel. How many people remember that there was, in fact, such a 'ceasefire' with Hamas-controlled Gaza only one year ago? How many people remember what occurred during that 'ceasefire'? Well, the people in Sderot and the western Negev remember. Even if no one else does. p> Let us refresh out memories. From November 26, 2006, until May 15, 2007, a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel went on for almost six months. One cannot ignore the statement made by Hamas five days before the ceasefire: "Hamas's military wing will stop the rocket fire when residents evacuate the city of Sderot." (from November 21, 2006) During that 'ceasefire', Gazans launched 315 missiles targeted at Sderot and the western Negev, according to an IDF spokesman. There was not one IDF response to the rocket fire during that ceasefire period. During a recent presentation at the IDC in Herzliya, to the cream of the crop of students of Israeli intelligence, the audience reacted with disbelief when they heard that there already was a 'ceasefire' last year, and that it wasn't kept in the slightest. Mecca Agreement During that 'ceasefire' period, on February 27, 2007, there was an agreement reached between the Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen). The agreement took place three months after the ceasefire went into effect; after 160 missiles had been fired at Israel since the day the 'ceasefire' commenced. Mashaal promised, in Moscow, to stop the Kassam rocket attacks. Two days later, seven missiles were launched from the Gaza Strip towards Israel. The question begs to be asked: What kind of Western democracy in the world would allow for a one-sided ceasefire? What other state would allow for a rocket to explode within its territory? Israel is going to celebrate 60 years of its independence in a few more weeks, as for the first time in 40 years a significant portion of its population are living under rocket threat. In the north, Hizbullah threatens with rocket fire from southern Lebanon. In the southern area of Israel, Hamas continues to fire from Gaza at Sderot, the western Negev and now Ashkelon. Hamas is also developing rockets that will reach Ashdod. At this point, up to half a million Israelis will be under rocket fire. No family in the state of Israel should have to live under rocket threat. At 60 years of independence, Israel's goal should be to end the rocket terror upon its citizens. It all starts with Sderot. Also, what most people forget is that Israel's adversaries are not advocating a 'ceasfire'; they promote a hudna. A hudna means no more than a temporary respite in the war between Islamic forces and non-Islamic forces. The authoritative Islamic Encyclopedia (London, 1922) defines hudna as a "temporary treaty" which can be approved or abrogated by Islamic religious leaders, depending on whether or not it serves the interests of Islam; and a hudna cannot last for more than 10 years. The Islamic Encyclopedia mentions the Hudaybia treaty as the ultimate hudna. Yasser Arafat also talked about a hudna in his speeches when he would refer to the Oslo Accords. In the words of the Islamic Encyclopedia, "The Hudaybia treaty, concluded by the Prophet Mohammad with the unbelievers of Mecca in 628, provided a precedent for subsequent treaties which the Prophet's successors made with non-Muslims. Mohammad made a hudna with a tribe of Jews back then to give him time to grow his forces, then broke the treaty and wiped them out. Although this treaty was violated within three years from the time that it was concluded, most jurists concur that the maximum period of peace with the enemy should not exceed ten years, since it was originally agreed that the Hudaybia treaty should last ten years." HaDaR can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net. |
|
CONDOLEEZZA RICE AND JERUSALEM
Posted by Eli E. Hertz, June 20, 2008. |
|
Lack of Authority and Unwarranted Tampering with International
Law
Two distinct issues exist: the issue of Jerusalem and the issue of the Holy Places. Cambridge Professor Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice and a renowned editor of International Law Reports concluded: "Not only are the two problems separate; they are also quite distinct in nature from one another. So far as the Holy Places are concerned, the question is for the most part one of assuring respect for the existing interests of the three religions and of providing the necessary guarantees of freedom of access, worship, and religious administration [E.H., as mandated in Article 13 and 14 of the "Mandate for Palestine"]. Israel reunited Jerusalem as one city in 1967, after Jordan joined the Egyptian and Syrian war offensive and shelled the Jewish part of Jerusalem. Israeli leaders vowed the city would never again be divided. Despite the disgraceful treatment of the Jewish Quarter and the Mount of Olives under the Jordanians and despite the Arabs' violation of their pledges to make all holy sites accessible to Jews and Christians, one of the first acts Israel undertook after reuniting the city was to guarantee and safeguard the rights of all citizens of Jerusalem. This included not only free access to holy sites for all faiths but also represented an unprecedented act of religious tolerance. Israel granted Muslim and Christian religious authorities responsibility for managing their respective holy sites –– including Muslim administration of Judaism's holiest site, the Temple Mount. Eventually, however, the Waqf, which holds administrative responsibility over the Temple Mount, violated the trust with which it was invested to respect and protect the holiness of the Temple Mount for both Muslims and Jews. Palestinian terrorism has targeted Jerusalem particularly in an attempt to regain control of the city from Israel. The result is that they have turned Jerusalem, literally the City of Peace, into a bloody battleground and have thus forfeited their claim to share in the city's destiny. Secretary Rice's positions on Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria including Jerusalem defies international law and make Palestinian Arabs believe that terror works. The outcome of consistent Arab aggression was best described by Professor, Judge Schwebel, a former President of the International Court of Justice: "As between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem." [italics by author] Jerusalem –– the spiritual, political, and historical capital of the Jewish people –– has served, and still serves, as the political capital of only one nation –– the one belonging to the Jewish people. 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 eli@mythsandfacts.org |
|
U.S. SAYS EXERCISE BY ISRAEL SEEMED DIRECTED AT IRAN
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 20, 2008. |
|
This article was written by Michael R. Gordon and Eric
Schmitt.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/washington/ 20iran.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin |
|
WASHINGTON –– Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military's capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran's nuclear program. More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said. The exercise also included Israeli helicopters that could be used to rescue downed pilots. The helicopters and refueling tankers flew more than 900 miles, which is about the same distance between Israel and Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, American officials said. Israeli officials declined to discuss the details of the exercise. A spokesman for the Israeli military would say only that the country's air force "regularly trains for various missions in order to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel." But the scope of the Israeli exercise virtually guaranteed that it would be noticed by American and other foreign intelligence agencies. A senior Pentagon official who has been briefed on the exercise, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the political delicacy of the matter, said the exercise appeared to serve multiple purposes. One Israeli goal, the Pentagon official said, was to practice flight tactics, aerial refueling and all other details of a possible strike against Iran's nuclear installations and its long-range conventional missiles. A second, the official said, was to send a clear message to the United States and other countries that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter. "They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know," the Pentagon official said. "There's a lot of signaling going on at different levels." Several American officials said they did not believe that the Israeli government had concluded that it must attack Iran and did not think that such a strike was imminent. Shaul Mofaz, a former Israeli defense minister who is now a deputy prime minister, warned in a recent interview with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot that Israel might have no choice but to attack. "If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack," Mr. Mofaz said in the interview published on June 6, the day after the unpublicized exercise ended. "Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable." But Mr. Mofaz was criticized by other Israeli politicians as seeking to enhance his own standing as questions mount about whether the embattled Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, can hang on to power. Israeli officials have told their American counterparts that Mr. Mofaz's statement does not represent official policy. But American officials were also told that Israel had prepared plans for striking nuclear targets in Iran and could carry them out if needed. Iran has shown signs that it is taking the Israeli warnings seriously, by beefing up its air defenses in recent weeks, including increasing air patrols. In one instance, Iran scrambled F-4 jets to double-check an Iraqi civilian flight from Baghdad to Tehran. "They are clearly nervous about this and have their air defense on guard," a Bush administration official said of the Iranians. Any Israeli attack against Iran's nuclear facilities would confront a number of challenges. Many American experts say they believe that such an attack could delay but not eliminate Iran's nuclear program. Much of the program's infrastructure is buried under earth and concrete and installed in long tunnels or hallways, making precise targeting difficult. There is also concern that not all of the facilities have been detected. To inflict maximum damage, multiple attacks might be necessary, which many analysts say is beyond Israel's ability at this time. But waiting also entails risks for the Israelis. Israeli officials have repeatedly expressed fears that Iran will soon master the technology it needs to produce substantial quantities of highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. Iran is also taking steps to better defend its nuclear facilities. Two sets of advance Russian-made radar systems were recently delivered to Iran. The radar will enhance Iran's ability to detect planes flying at low altitude. Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, said in February that Iran was close to acquiring Russian-produced SA-20 surface-to-air missiles. American military officials said that the deployment of such systems would hamper Israel's attack planning, putting pressure on Israel to act before the missiles are fielded. For both the United States and Israel, Iran's nuclear program has been a persistent worry. A National Intelligence Estimate that was issued in December by American intelligence agencies asserted that Iran had suspended work on weapons design in late 2003. The report stated that it was unclear if that work had resumed. It also noted that Iran's work on uranium enrichment and on missiles, two steps that Iran would need to take to field a nuclear weapon, had continued. In late May, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran's suspected work on nuclear matters was a "matter of serious concern" and that the Iranians owed the agency "substantial explanations." Over the past three decades, Israel has carried out two unilateral attacks against suspected nuclear sites in the Middle East. In 1981, Israeli jets conducted a raid against Iraq's nuclear plant at Osirak after concluding that it was part of Saddam Hussein's program to develop nuclear weapons. In September, Israeli aircraft bombed a structure in Syria that American officials said housed a nuclear reactor built with the aid of North Korea. The United States protested the Israeli strike against Iraq in 1981, but its comments in recent months have amounted to an implicit endorsement of the Israeli strike in Syria. Pentagon officials said that Israel's air forces usually conducted a major early summer training exercise, often flying over the Mediterranean or training ranges in Turkey where they practice bombing runs and aerial refueling. But the exercise this month involved a larger number of aircraft than had been previously observed, and included a lengthy combat rescue mission. Much of the planning appears to reflect a commitment by Israel's military leaders to ensure that its armed forces are adequately equipped and trained, an imperative driven home by the difficulties the Israeli military encountered in its Lebanon operation against Hezbollah. "They rehearse it, rehearse it and rehearse it, so if they actually have to do it, they're ready," the Pentagon official said. "They' re not taking any options off the table." Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
ARAB TERRORISTS SHOOT AND WOUND THREE JEWS IN SAMARIA
Posted by HaDaR, June 20, 2008. |
|
This was written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu and it appeared today in Arutz-7. |
|
(IsraelNN.com) Arab terrorists shot and wounded three people who were hiking between the Jewish communities of Nevei Tzuf and Nachliel in Samaria, northwest of Ramallah, Friday afternoon. Two of the victims are in moderate and very serious condition from bullet wounds in the back and stomach, and a third person suffered lighter wounds. Two other hikers escaped injury and notified authorities. Rescue teams administered first aid at the scene and an army helicopter flew the victims to Sheba Hospital at Tel HaShomer Medical Center in Tel Aviv. Medics encountered delays because the wounded were in a hard to access location. IDF soldiers are searching for the terrorists. Area residents and leaders have warned that that the recent "good will measures" implemented by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak to ease travel restrictions and remove roadblocks in Judea and Samaria would lead to an increase in terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. Spokesmen for the nationalist Jewish Front organization blamed Defense Minister Ehud Barak for the shooting, noting that he ordered the lifting of travel barriers for Arabs in the area. "The time has come for the Defense Minster to worry about the security of Jews and not the quality of life for Arabs," the Jewish Front stated. HaDaR can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net. |
|
PAVING THE WAY FOR IRAN'S BOMB; "HOW TO JUDGE OBAMA"; BIASED REPORTING BY NY TIMES
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 20, 2008. |
|
IS THIS THE WAY OF A FREE COUNTRY? Rivka Meirchik was kept in jail for more than two months, without charg, before she got to appear in court. In less than a minute, the judge remanded her to prison, still without charges. The judge accepted police evidence, and refused to let her attorney say anything. The judge left the courtroom, refusing to set a hearing within the subsequent two days, as required by Israeli law. [She was arrested for refusing to identify herself, and then was accused of resisting arrest. That's her crime. "Resisting arrest" usually is a police lie.] Put in solitary confinement, she was denied phone and visitation rights. Although she has severe food allergies, the prison did not get her food she can tolerate, except for fruit. She was said to appear emaciated, when she got her half-minute in court. She was brought there in leg irons and handcuffs (IMRA, 6/5). I would remark that they are treating her like terrorists, except that terrorists usually are not held in solitary confinement and are allowed visitors and phone calls, though their abuse of those rights to promote terrorism has incurred restrictions. They get more of a hearing and an opportunity to point out any hardship or police misconduct they suffer. But Rivka Meirchik is just a dissident Jew in the supposedly Jewish state. She has no rights recognized there. PAVING THE WAY FOR IRAN'S BOMB No wonder the Nobel committee gave a peace prize to ElBaradei, head of the IAEA! It is anti-American and favors the sponsors of terrorism. So does he. "For under ElBaradei's leadership, the IAEA has devoted itself to performing two tasks. It seeks to be informed of rogue regime's illicit nuclear weapons programs before those programs are exposed in the media and cause the IAEA embarrassment; and it works to ensure that nothing will be done to thwart these rogue regimes' nuclear weapons programs." He criticized Israel and the US more for destroying a nuclear plant that Syria had pledged not to build than Syria for building it and for stonewalling IAEA inspection of the site. "Why has he been easy on Iran's nuclear bomb development? "You do not want to give additional arguments to new crazies who say, 'Let's go and bomb Iran.'" Recently, however, he issued a stern report on Iranian military development. Probably he was emboldened to do so, because the US has backed down from combating terrorism except in Iraq (and Afghanistan). Israel is on its own (IMRA, 6/6). These international agencies do more harm than good. Their worst harm is in paralyzing action by decent countries. "HOW TO JUDGE OBAMA" That's the editorial offered by the NY Sun. It asks whether we should judge candidate Obama by his long association with his violent Marxism friend William Ayers, by his long association with his anti-American and antisemitic pastor, or by his new role at AIPAC as supportive of Israel and increasingly firm against Iran? The editors believe he has matured. It cites Pres. Truman's earlier antisemitism but later recognition of Israel. It cites Pres. Nixon, no friend of the Jews but who "raced to re-supply Israel…" What candidates tell AIPAC, the editorial acknowledges, they don‘t always do when elected. Example is Pres. Bush, who exercised a waver not to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, though he had promised to. Clinton exercised that waiver, too. Bush nevertheless was the most pro-Israel US president (6/6). The examples are based on misconceptions. Obama is maturing? Why is it only in the last couple of weeks, when his previous stands antagonized too many voters and his excuses wore thin? He had used his radicalism to appeal to primary voters and now appears more centrist to appeal to the general voters. I find that behavior cynical demagoguery. I think he is dangerous. Truman's recognition of Israel was done as a personal favor to his former partner and Chaim Weizmann. Truman's real attitude towards Israel was revealed by his ensuing embargo on arms to the Mideast while Britain was arming several Arab states preparing to invade Israel. How many Jews were killed as a result? Pres. Nixon did not race to re-supply Israel. Just the opposite. Kissinger delayed the re-supply so as to chasten Israel, making it more amenable to his pro-Egyptian policy. PM Meir became desperate for re-supply. How many Israelis were killed because of Nixon? In fact, the re-supply was done by Gen. Haig, when Nixon was out of commission for a while, and it had to be done or the Soviets would have invaded Israel and gained a foothold in the Mideast. The waiver in the law on the State Dept. does not apply to moving the embassy. I read the law. The myth was exposed but not widely enough. Hence people perpetuate the myth, instead of prosecuting presidents for violating the law. Another myth is that Clinton and Bush, Jr. are good friends to Israel. It isn't good friends that arm terrorists and demand that Israel curb defenses and cede parts of its homeland that would afford secure borders for Israel and half its water supply. It isn't good friends that refuse to move the embassy to Jerusalem, even to western Jerusalem. The implication is that the US still adheres to the State Dept. notion that since the General Assembly suggested that Jerusalem be internationalized, none of it should be recognized as part of Israel. Ominous! MILITARY COOPERATION BETWEEN SAUDIS & SPAIN The two countries signed an agreement of military cooperation. The news brief, like most such briefs, did not define how they intend to cooperate (IMRA, 6/7). The full story might not seem so nice. It might mean that Spain, which leads much anti-Zionist diplomacy, would help S. Arabia in a war on Israel. It more likely gives Spain an opportunity to sell to S. Arabia the means to do so. There also are notices of agreement by Arab and European colleges to cooperate. What do academically-minded European colleges and indoctrination-minded Arab colleges have in common? Perhaps the Europeans intend to show the Arabs how to train students better in what they need for warfare. BIASED REPORTING BY NY TIMES Ethan Bronner's headline is, "Strikes Kill Israeli Worker and 4-Year-Old Gaza Child." The accusation against the IDF is made by unnamed Arab "witnesses." The Israeli Army believes that its missile struck the intended terrorist target, not civilians. It is checking. Israelis are quoted as explaining that the fault for any injured civilian is Hamas' for fighting from amongst civilians, citing the recent finding of missiles and launchers near a schoolyard (6/6, A13). Here is a disputed report, but those who read just the headlines are given the impression that Israeli forces killed another Arab child. That is not objective reporting. Neither is it sensible. The P.A. Arabs have built an industry of fabricating casualties to blame on Israel. The al-Dura case is one example. The casualties are non-existent and acted out for the cameras. Another type of example is deaths from natural causes being attributed to Israel. Another is false claims of medical harm to sickly Arabs barred from passing checkpoints. The claimed patients, who in any case have to right to expect medical treatment from their declared enemy, were not barred. Naturally, they are examined for terrorism, since terrorists have exploited permission to enter Israeli hospitals. Just about all Arab claims of being attacked by settlers have been disproved. The attacks, if any, are by the Arabs against settlers. Many Arab land claims have proved fraudulent. Deceit is an approved Muslim Arab tactic. Arab witnesses are notoriously propagandistic. By contrast, the Israelis usually report objectively, bending over backwards to investigate, punishing soldiers who are aggressive, to the point that terrorists get away. The Times has access to the same news as I. Why doesn't it know or acknowledge these things? I think that the answer is its anti-Zionist bias. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear regularly in 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 |
|
OPEN THE TEMPLE MOUNT TO JEWISH PRAYER!
Posted by Supporters of the New Jewish Congress, June 20, 2008. |
|
Help us reach 600,000 please sign and pass it on! For all those with Halachic concerns please read http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df7mjrh_27g3tj8bdz |
|
To: The State of Israel The Temple Mount is the holiest place in the world to the Jewish people; yet Jews are denied the right to pray in groups, and even as individuals; this refusal is accompanied by their constant degradation, and they are granted no opportunity for any religious expression whatsoever on the Temple Mount. It is our position that if the stature of the Jews on the Temple Mount were to change positively, in a manner that would reflect their status as law-abiding citizens, sons of the nation that is sovereign on the Mountain and as people who have basic human rights in the Jewish state, then the standing of the State of Israel would immediately improve. This would effect a positive change for the benefit and security of all its citizens. Ever since the Six Day War, many Jews to whom the Temple Mount is precious (and what Jew does not hold the Temple Mount as precious?) have demanded the right to pray at this sacred site. These demands have been based on their understanding that arrangements could be made that would reflect the reality of the current situation. However, let it be known that the Jewish people will never accept the total refusal of Jewish communal prayer on the Mountain. We demand that the Government of Israel allow the Jewish people to have freedom of religious expression on the Temple Mount. Additionally, the government must establish special fixed days for Jewish communal prayer in fixed locations on the Temple Mount. This move will serve as evidence of Jewish sovereignty on the Mount. *The Three Pilgrimage Festivals of Israel which are Sukkot, Pesach and Shavuot. This will serve as a preliminary step in confirming the Jewish people's inexorable connection with the Temple Mount, location of the Holy Temple, under the sovereignty of the people of Israel. Sincerely,
Sign the petition at
The Open the Temple Mount to Jewish Prayer! Petition to The State of Israel was created by Supporters of the New Jewish Congress (NJC) and written by Yosef Rabin (Text taken from NJC Letter) (613yos@gmail.com). |
|
THE ENEMY HAS A NAME
Posted by Daniel Pipes, June 20, 2008. |
|
If you cannot name your enemy, how can you defeat it? Just as a physician must identify a disease before curing a patient, so a strategist must identify the foe before winning a war. Yet Westerners have proven reluctant to identify the opponent in the conflict the U.S. government variously (and euphemistically) calls the "global war on terror," the "long war," the "global struggle against violent extremism," or even the "global struggle for security and progress." This timidity translates into an inability to define war goals. Two high-level U.S. statements from late 2001 typify the vague and ineffective declarations issued by Western governments. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld defined victory as establishing "an environment where we can in fact fulfill and live [our] freedoms." In contrast, George W. Bush announced a narrower goal, "the defeat of the global terror network" –– whatever that undefined network might be. "Defeating terrorism" has, indeed, remained the basic war goal. By implication, terrorists are the enemy and counterterrorism is the main response. But observers have increasingly concluded that terrorism is just a tactic, not an enemy. Bush effectively admitted this much in mid-2004, acknowledging that "We actually misnamed the war on terror." Instead, he called the war a "struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies and who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world." A year later, in the aftermath of the 7/7 London transport bombings, British prime minister Tony Blair advanced the discussion by speaking of the enemy as "a religious ideology, a strain within the world-wide religion of Islam." Soon after, Bush himself used the terms "Islamic radicalism," "militant Jihadism," and "Islamo-fascism." But these words prompted much criticism and he backtracked. By mid-2007, Bush had reverted to speaking about "the great struggle against extremism that is now playing out across the broader Middle East." That is where things now stand, with U.S. government agencies being advised to refer to the enemy with such nebulous terms as "death cult," "cult-like," "sectarian cult," and "violent cultists." In fact, that enemy has a precise and concise name: Islamism, a radical utopian version of Islam. Islamists, adherents of this well funded, widespread, totalitarian ideology, are attempting to create a global Islamic order that fully applies the Islamic law (Shari'a). Thus defined, the needed response becomes clear. It is two-fold: vanquish Islamism and help Muslims develop an alternative form of Islam. Not coincidentally, this approach roughly parallels what the allied powers accomplished vis-à-vis the two prior radical utopian movements, fascism and communism. First comes the burden of defeating an ideological enemy. As in 1945 and 1991, the goal must be to marginalize and weaken a coherent and aggressive ideological movement, so that it no longer attracts followers nor poses a world-shaking threat. World War II, won through blood, steel, and atomic bombs, offers one model for victory, the Cold War, with its deterrence, complexity, and nearly-peaceful collapse, offers quite another. Victory against Islamism, presumably, will draw on both these legacies and mix them into a novel brew of conventional war, counterterrorism, counterpropaganda, and many other strategies. At one end, the war effort led to the overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan; at the other, it requires repelling the lawful Islamists who work legitimately within the educational, religious, media, legal, and political arenas. The second goal involves helping Muslims who oppose Islamist goals and wish to offer an alternative to Islamism's depravities by reconciling Islam with the best of modern ways. But such Muslims are weak, being but fractured individuals who have only just begun the hard work of researching, communicating, organizing, funding, and mobilizing. To do all this more quickly and effectively, these moderates need non-Muslim encouragement and sponsorship. However unimpressive they may be at present, moderates, with Western support, alone hold the potential to modernize Islam, and thereby to terminate the threat of Islamism. In the final analysis, Islamism presents two main challenges to Westerners: To speak frankly and to aim for victory. Neither comes naturally to the modern person, who tends to prefer political correctness and conflict resolution, or even appeasement. But once these hurdles are overcome, the Islamist enemy's objective weakness in terms of arsenal, economy, and resources means it can readily be defeated. Daniel Pipes is the founder of Campus Watch and director of its parent organization, the Middle East Forum. This appeared yesterday in The Jerusalem Post
|
|
DEAL WITH THE DEVIL
Posted by Daily Alert, June 20, 2008. |
|
This was written by Sever Plocker and it appeared yesterday
on Ynet News |
|
Instead of refusing to talk with Hamas, Israel granted it priceless legitimacy
When we talk about a "lull agreement with Hamas," the word "lull" isn't the problem. Rather, the agreement with Hamas is the problem.
En route to the truce agreement, the government shattered the most important strategic advantage it possessed ever since Hamas came to power: The advantage of refusal. The refusal to engage in dialogue with Hamas, the refusal to recognize the legitimacy of its rule, the refusal to compromise with it, and the implied refusal to give Hamas international legitimacy.
This refusal had much power because it was premised on a moral worldview that even Israel's critics adopted, either wholeheartedly or not: One does not get into the same bed with someone who in advance declares his intention to kick you out of that bed. One does not fall for the honey trap of appeasement deals with the devil.
The Israeli public was mistakenly presented with only two options –– a massive military operation, or appeasement. There was a third way too: Ongoing blows delivered at terror centers and leaders.
In June 1940, Germany sought to embark on secret indirect talks with Britain. Winston Churchill rejected these feelers out of hand. If we embark on any kind of contacts, he warned, we shall quickly find ourselves on a slippery slope that would ultimately lead to acceptance of the evil Nazi regime, based on the argument that this is reality and that it "represents the Germans." Churchill was not tempted, and saved civilization.
Yet the lesson of June 1940 is sometimes forgotten.
The State of Israel did not need Hamas' recognition. We're doing quite well without it, thank you. Hamas, at the current stage of its political development, desperately needed Israel's recognition, as the doors to the family of nations were closed to it. Otherwise it would have forever remained outside the fence of the Arab mainstream, ostracized and rejected, just like al-Qaeda.
Hamas would have capitulated
In the wake of al-Qaeda's global terror campaign, international consensus emerged in respect to boycotting the organization: No one was talking to it, no one was looking to cut deals with it, and no one engaged in negotiations with it, either directly or indirectly. It was isolated, ostracized, and fought against.
The refusal strategy led to al-Qaeda's decline, its significant weakening, and a gradual evaporation of the bewitching influence it had on hundreds of millions of Muslims. Its stock dropped considerably: At the end of the day, only few people are willing to be considered the friends of a pariah.
Had Israel persisted in its refusal to recognize Hamas, the regime in Gaza would have collapsed or fundamentally changed. Yet surprisingly, Israel deserted the path of refusal a short time after it managed, through great efforts, to convince Europe, the United States, Russia, and the United Nations to establish a united refusal front. Yet Jerusalem was the first to cut out a window in the boycott wall.
Without making any diplomatic-ideological-strategic concession, Hamas was recognized by Israel as the legitimate master of the Gaza Strip, the authentic representative of the Palestinian people, and a partner for agreements of one kind or another.
This is a priceless gift for Hamas. Without it, it would have capitulated. Under the pressure exerted by the Palestinian and Arab street, in the absence of any military choice, and with a sense that the oxygen of its zealous rhetoric is running out, Hamas would have ended its attacks unilaterally, drafted a new charter, agreed to hand over Gilad Shalit to Egypt, and accepted the ultimate conditions presented by Israel and the international community for minimal recognition of it. We were within reach of this.
Yet it was not Hamas that capitulated. Israel capitulated.
And now we are left to hope that the Israeli government won't repeat the same mistake in the north and refrain from engaging in "indirect" negotiations with Hizbullah on the matter of drawing the border between us and Lebanon.
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
|
|
1 BAR MITZVAH MULTIPLIED BY 15
Posted by Steve Kramer, June 20, 2008. |
|
There's a big contrast between most bar/bat mitzvah celebrations in America and those in Israel. Movies have been made about over-the-top "theme" parties in the US, with models, celebrities, and famous entertainers overshadowing the true significance of the event. Obviously, those parties are not the norm, and there are probably a few similar ones here in Israel each year (that I'm not invited to). But our celebrations are generally modest affairs with a simple ceremony in the synagogue on a morning when the Torah is read and a separate party at a convenient time for the guests. Some American families choose to forego a stupendous affair and bring their celebration to Israel, incorporating the ceremony into the context of Jerusalem and other areas of our land, the true center of Jewish existence. Richard and Lisa Baker of NRDC Equity Partners live in an upscale Connecticut community with their three children. Knock-out bar mitzvah extravaganzas aren't uncommon in their neighborhood. But when it came time to plan their oldest son Henry's bar mitzvah, the Bakers wanted something more. That's where the Forgotten People Fund [www.fpf.org.il] came in. FPF is an example of the kind of grass-roots charity that Israelis specialize in. With a totally volunteer workforce, FPF is able to service many of the needs of the large Ethiopian community in Netanya with an overhead of only 1%. FPF raises funds to help pay for necessities like school fees and books, summer camp, clothing, scholarships, dental and special medication costs, vitamins, bus cards, food vouchers, utility bills, and taxes. It also pays for pro-active programs like nutrition seminars, pre-army courses, support for soldiers, cultural exchanges, seniors' activities, and academic and social activities for kids. One of FPF's most significant programs is providing bar and bat mitzvah experiences for Ethiopian families who would otherwise be unable to provide them. The Bakers, along with their obviously mature son Henry, decided that he would share his good fortune with 15 young men in far-off Israel, expanding his bar mitzvah into an experience that they and the Ethiopian families will never forget. FPF was able to find an appropriate religious junior high in Netanya to work with the Bakers, who provided a dedicated computer to the school with which the boys and Henry could talk (via Skype) in the months leading up to the celebration. Arranging all this was not a simple proposition, but FPF and the family's liaison in Israel were able to bring off the affair in a fabulously successful manner. Mid-morning on June 12, the Bakers and their three children arrived at the Shapira school in the Dora neighborhood of Netanya, which has a large population of Ethiopian and other recent immigrant children. The students had already participated in their daily morning prayers before school began. The 15 boys, all attired in new clothes and sports shoes purchased through the FPF for the occasion, participated with the Bakers in an English-language word game to break the ice. A translator was on hand to help when translation from Hebrew was required. After that we all went upstairs to the auditorium where the entire junior high school population was gathered to enjoy the program. There were a few speeches by the principal and the school rabbi, and then a performance by the school's female singing troupe. After that, two professional musicians brought enough conga drums onto the stage for all of the bar mitzvah boys, including Henry, to bang on during several musical numbers. The Bakers then presented each of the boys with a tefillin set and prayer book. We went back downstairs to enjoy some canapes and drinks and to greet the boys and their families. Understandably, all the boys were a bit shy with Henry and his family. But in the evening, at the FPF-organized party in an ocean-side restaurant, all that stiffness evaporated. There were about 150 guests, including the boys and their families, teachers, some other Shapira students, and some of us FPF supporters who paid our own way. The disc jockey kept the music going and the wait staff kept bringing out platters of food. After a short while the dancing began and things really began to loosen up. A student choir entertained us between courses and the dance floor became more crowded, with the teachers, the parents, the Bakers, and the kids all joining in. There was a loud and long "Hava Nagila" with each and every bar mitzvah boy being hoisted on a chair and gyrated up and down. Some even got two chair rides. A professional hip-hop dancer led the kids in learning some of his convoluted steps as the temperature on the dance floor rose. Next, along with couples dancing to an African beat, a line of young and old dancers snaked around the floor amidst the tables, accompanied by much bumping and laughing. Before dessert was served, the Bakers had the pleasure of distributing gift packages to all the boys, which included MP3 players and other goodies. Feeling the warm fellowship and camaraderie that was evident that evening was really enjoyable. Everyone participated as equals, though we were Jews from very disparate backgrounds and economic circumstances. All could feel the obvious pleasure everyone was having. As for the Bakers, they couldn't have created a more special event for Henry and the family no matter the cost. The joy that they brought to their own children and to 15 others who couldn't have dreamed of having this kind of party is unequaled. Afterwards, Lisa Baker told Anne Silverman, co-founder and head of FPF, how greatly affected she was by the entire affair. Lisa plans to maintain her relationship with FPF and vows that Henry's experience will be replicated by others in their community. In addition, she plans to interest her friends in joining the Adopt-a-Family program, which provides for the assistance that a specific family requires during the year and allows the donors to be kept abreast of how their donation is being spent. Without a doubt, the Bakers and the FPF produced a win-win proposition for everyone involved: the school, the bar mitzvah boys and their families, and the Baker family themselves. And what was the theme of Henry's bar mitzvah? To multiply the impact of his bar mitzvah 15 times over, once for each of the young men and their families from Netanya. 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." |
|
OFFICIALS IN THE PC(USA) TAKE STEPS TO FURTHER ALIENATE JEWISH GROUPS
Posted by A Recovering Presbyterian, June 19, 2008. |
|
[For background, click here.] |
|
Yes indeed, the PC(USA) has reacted with lightning speed to display its sensitivity to the very real concerns of many in the Jewish community about Presbyterian anti-Jewish bias. A number of Presbyterians –– in an effort to be fair minded –– have asked for an explanation of the replacement of the May 2008 version of the PC(USA)'s Office of Interfaith Relations paper on vigilance against anti-Jewish bias with a vastly different June effort. Director of the Presbyterian News Service Jerry Van Marter has provided comments that will no doubt enlighten the world about the thinking of influential Presbyterian insiders. The Presbyterian News Service, while editorially independent, is, nonetheless an official news agency of the PC(USA) and is accountable to the General Assembly Council and ultimately to the General Assembly. Its status as an official news agency necessitates that it reflects on the PC(USA) as a whole. Jerry Van Marter, coordinator of the Presbyterian News Service, suggested Jewish critics were overreacting. "The Jewish groups go nuts every time we make any statement they interpret as favorable to Palestine or the Palestinians," Van Marter told NJJN. Van Marter said church leaders amended their first statement "to make it more balanced, and apparently it still doesn't satisfy our Jewish friends. It is tough for Presbyterians because there is a Christian population in the occupied territories. The Christians are a very small minority, and they are shrinking because they are caught in the crossfires. The Presbyterian Church understands precisely why Jewish groups are upset, because we refuse to be one-sided. We've been on record for a two-state solution for 60 years now." Still, said Van Marter, Presbyterians are not of one mind about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Van Marter's comments appear in the New Jersey Jewish News.
In all honesty, I have nothing to say in response to this except that I find it truly unbelievable.
Contact A recovering Presbyterian at wspotts@zoominternet.net |
|
OBAMA AND THE JEWS
Posted by Ruth Matar, June 19, 2008. |
|
Dear Friends, Some of you have written to ask me why I am focused on Barack Obama as a candidate for the American presidency. And why am I so concerned about the likelihood of America having its first Black president, especially, since so many Americans are excited about this possibility? (Obama was born to a white American mother and a black Kenyan father.) Actually, if Obama were elected he would be the first Arab-American president, and not the first Black president. Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side, 43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro, and 87.5% Arab. (His father's birth certificate even states that he is Arab, not African Negro.) In Barack Obama's school in Indonesia he was registered as Arab Muslim. So what, you may say, what difference does all this racial discussion make? Quite frankly I fear Obama becoming the American president because I am part of two racial groups which Obama is antagonistic against. I happen to be both White and Jewish! Obama is antagonistic towards 'Whites'! From his book Dreams from My Father "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to 'Whites'." Also, from Dreams from My Father: "I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race." Obama is definitely antagonistic towards Jews! There is proof positive. I received an e-mail dated June 12, 2008 from Dr. Paul Eidelberg, the founder and president of The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy. He is an internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. This e-mail deals at length and in frightening detail with the "Jewish Lobby" and its detrimental effect on America. I will quote the actual language of the e-mail later on in the article. This shocking e-mail reminded me very unpleasantly of the days when I was nine years old and living with my family, in my place of birth, Wr. Neustadt, Austria. I spent most of my days hiding in our coat closet with my doll and teddy bear, waiting for the dreaded knock of the SS on our front door. (SS is short for Hitler's Schutzstaffel, the group primarily was responsible for the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Nazis during the Second World War. They were set apart from other Nazi organizations by their distinctive black shirts and the insignia of the death-head.) The knock did come soon thereafter, but that is another story. From my hideout I did understand some, if not all, of my parent's conversation. The gist of it was that Hitler blamed us Jews for everything that was going wrong and that we had to escape. I think you understand the feelings that I had when I read the e-mail from Obama's official website. "Read this latest gem from the BARACK OBAMA 2008 OFFICIAL CAMPAIGN WEBSITE (which was scrubbed once the blog world started looking at this outrage):
I really did not understand until I read this statement which had been on Barack Obama's official campaign website before it was scrubbed that Obama may truly an anti-Semite. On February 21, 2008 there was an article published by the Jerusalem Post, by Marc Zell, in the online edition entitled "Obama and the Jews." Less than two weeks before the critical primary elections in Ohio and Texas, Democratic voters have made it very clear: Barack Hussein Obama is for real. Leading in the popular votes cast, delegates pledged and total delegates (meaning principally the back-room machers euphemistically referred to as "superdelegates"), Obama has a decent chance to become the 2008 Democratic candidate for President of the United States. Obama has become a rallying point for millions of disgruntled voters who yearn for a new style of politics in the world's greatest democracy. Since the Republican race is all but over and Senator John McCain will likely win the nomination of his party in Minneapolis in early September, it is not idle speculation to consider an Obama-McCain contest in the November general election. Such a contest has potentially enormous consequences for Israel and the Jews. It is no secret that Obama's candidacy has been supported financially and politically by many prominent members of the American Jewish community. Even previously outspoken Clinton-supporting spokespersons for Democrats Abroad here in Israel have been hedging their bets recently in articles and interviews, suggesting that an Obama Administration would augur well for Israel. Incredibly, citing unenthusiastic, canned pro-Israel campaign statements, these dyed-in-the-wool Democratic sycophants would urge Jewish voters to cast their fate and Israel's with Obama rather than with the Republican candidate, McCain. With all due deference to the Obama celebrity supporters like Steven Spielberg and George Soros, can Jews herein Israel and in America and other friends of Israel risk a vote for Obama in November? A quick look at the facts should switch on a big red light in most peoples' minds. First and foremost among the considerations that should trouble friends of Israel is the foreign policy team Obama has selected to advise him. The composition of a candidate's advisory panel is usually a very good indicator of where the candidate will come out on the issues if elected. This was the test this writer applied to George W. Bush in 2000 at a time when most pundits in Israel and in the Jewish community predicted that his Middle East policy would be a carbon copy of his father's, meaning trouble for Israel. But Bush, the son, had selected a blue-ribbon team of pragmatic and conservative advisors whose views on the Middle East were markedly pro-Israel and pro-democracy. Subsequently, the W. Bush Era became among the closest allies of Israel in her 60-year history. The opposite is the case with the Obama team. Headed up by Jimmy Carter's ("Israel is an apartheid state") national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama's team includes such problematic figures as Anthony Lake, Robert O. Malley and Susan Rice. One commentator, citing an article by the staunchly left-wing Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, has noted that an Obama presidency including a foreign policy team that included the foregoing and their ideological soul-mates, "would likely have an approach towards Israel radically at odds with those of previous Presidents (both Republican and Democrat)" and is the candidate apt to be "least supportive" of Israel. Brzezinski has been disseminating vitriol about Israel for three decades and recently publicly defended the Walt-Mearsheimer study which concluded that US policy towards Israel was the result of Jewish pressure and inconsistent with American interests. More recently Brzezinski called for the US to initiate dialogue with Hamas, described Israel's action in the Second Lebanon War as a killing campaign against civilian hostages and earlier this month made a trip to confer with Syria's President Assad, ostensibly unbeknownst to the Obama campaign. Robert O. Malley, another former Carter Administration diplomat and President Clinton's special advisor on Arab-Israeli affairs, is an unabashed advocate for the Palestinians, co-authoring a spate of anti-Israel propaganda with former Arafat advisor, Hussein Agha, including a tract that blames Israel for the failure of the 2000 Camp David talks and another piece which blames the Bush Administration for continuing Israeli-Palestinian strife. And then there is Susan Rice, foreign policy advisor to the ill-fated John Kerry presidential campaign in 2004, where she concocted the idea of solving the Middle East problem by appointing none other than Jimmy Carter and James Baker as negotiators, an idea which was later repudiated by her own boss as being unbalanced against Israel. Nor are these the only "bad apples" in Obama's foreign policy bin... Another problematic indicator is candidate's close association with Jeremiah Wright, Jr., pastor of the Trinity United Community Church (a member of the United Church for Christ, which itself has been rebuked for anti-Israel bias), who is well known for his virulent anti-Israel remarks, including a call for a divestment campaign against Israel for the "injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism." Nor should bring much solace to Jewish voters and friends of Israel that Reverend Wright counts among his closest friends, the nefarious anti-Semite, Louis Farrakhan for whom Judaism is a "gutter religion" and Jews are "bloodsuckers." Obama could have picked any one of hundreds of churches in Chicago's South Side; he picked Jeremiah Wright's parsonage, which awarded Farrakhan with the Jeremiah Wright Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer Award in 2007. And Wright's church is the single largest beneficiary of Obama's charitable giving. Even Jewish columnist Richard Cohen of the Washington Post felt compelled to ask Obama to clarify his relationship with these anti-Jewish and anti-Israel community leaders, questioning why Obama has stayed steadfast in his allegiance to Pastor Wright over the years. Obama is only a first-term senator and has therefore only participated in a handful of votes that bear upon Israel and the Middle East. He also has a penchant for missing controversial votes where he would have to put his personal policies in the public record. However, his public statements on a variety of issues present a number of troubling issues for Jews and friends of Israel. Here are a few samples:
Obama was the only Democratic candidate who said the onus was on Israel to change its policies vis-à-vis the Palestinians in order to achieve peace. Barack's problematic and unrecanted public statements and associations raise enough serious questions that should cause Jewish voters and friends of Israel to think twice about supporting him in November. But there is one other troublesome factor that voters in the Democratic primaries have thus far failed to credit seriously, viz.: Obama aspires to become president of the greatest democracy and still the only remaining superpower on the planet, having held a senate seat for less than five years and having had no previous administrative or national experience. While it may have suited Democratic voters to cast their votes for Obama during the primaries as a protest against the Democratic political establishment (much as they did in 2006 to deny (now Independent) Senator Joseph Lieberman the nomination of his party for the Senate seat from Connecticut), one would like to think that the American electorate will again demonstrate its maturity and seriousness during the General Elections in November 2008, when their votes really count. The Presidency in this day and age is no place for a neophyte, however charismatic. Those of us Americans who live in the Jewish State clearly understand what is at stake and what kind of risk Obama poses to the region and the world. There is every reason to hope that our compatriots in the United States and friends of Israel and freedom generally would agree. * * * Dear friends, I feel very strongly that true friends of Israel cannot risk a vote for Obama in November. With Blessing and Love for Israel,
Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org |
|
THE BOTTOM LINE ON THE CEASEFIRE: PALESTINIANS CAN DO EVERYTHING BUT SHOOT
Posted by Dr Aaron Lerner, June 19, 2008. |
|
Two items on the Cease Fire. |
|
1. "PM Spokesman Regev to IMRA: Palestinians can do everything but shoot" IMRA asked Mark Regev, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's Foreign Press Adviser, the following question in English, on 19 June 2009 five hours after the "calm understanding" went into effect in the Gaza Strip: Is the manufacture and assembly of rockets prohibited in the Gaza Strip during the calm period and if so is this an actionable violation –– Israel has the right to act against such activity? Mark Regev called back shortly later with the following statement: The understanding with Egypt talks explicitly about the total cessation of hostile fire from Gaza into Israel and about an arms embargo on Hamas. That's what the agreement explicitly relates to. IMRA: So they can run their rocket production and assembly lines inside the Gaza Strip without it being a violation of the agreement. Regev: Once again. They cannot import any military equipment into Gaza for the production process. IMRA: Right. But whatever they have at hand they can use to manufacture and assemble. Regev: They cannot shoot it. IMRA: They can't shoot it. Very good. Now they can also set up bunkers. They can bring in bulldozers and equipment and set up bunkers lining the border with Israel and build tunnels as long as they don't go through them and as long as they don't shoot from them Right? Regev: They cannot shoot at us. IMRA: They can't shoot but they can do everything else. Regev: That's what the agreement is about. You are correct. IMRA: Thank you very much. Regev: Always a pleasure sir.
2. "Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesman, Arye Mekel clueless on calm understanding" IMRA interviewed Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesman, Arye Mekel, in English, on 19 June 2009 five hours after the "calm understanding" went into effect in the Gaza Strip: IMRA: Is the manufacture and assembly of rockets prohibited in the Gaza Strip during the calm period and if so if this an actionable violation –– Israel has the right to act against such activity? Meckel: I don't know what is in there. There is nothing written. Everything is a matter of understandings. There is no document. Therefore, I can't tell you because, you know, it is not written anywhere. IMRA: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs put out a briefing note today that on the one hand says that "The goals of the calm are the total cessation of terrorism and firing at Israel by all factions, the end of Palestinian smuggling and military build-up." but on the other hand it says "Any terrorist act originating from the Gaza Strip –– regardless of which organization is responsible –– will be considered as a fundamental breach of the understandings." Since on the one hand it says that a military build-up is prohibited but on the other hand it doesn't include that as something that Israel will respond to you am I to understand that Israel isn't planning to respond. Meckel: I wouldn't read anything into these sentences. Basically there is no document therefore nobody knows what Israel will respond to. It is not something that is written or signed or anything like that. IMRA: From an Israeli "hasbarah" (AL: information) standpoint, is Israel telling the world that it will only respond if there is firing or shelling? Otherwise Israel won't respond? Meckel: Any form of terror will be a violation of the understandings. IMRA: If tomorrow or this afternoon there is a photo op at a rocket assembly plant at Gaza City –– is that an "act of terror" or what? Meckel: I leave it to your judgment. IMRA: For purposes of hasbarah, is the Government of Israel explaining now to the world, as a warning, that it would consider the construction of rockets or the building of bunkers to be an "act of terror" or Israel is leaving it open and not explaining to the world what its position is on this matter. Meckel: We are saying that any act of terror will be a violation of the understanding. IMRA: Does Israel consider it to be an "act of terror" if the Palestinians construct rockets and missiles in Gaza? Is that an "act of terror"? Meckel: I think I already answered all your questions. IMRA: Well, you have answered by not answering. Meckel: Who are you anyway? IMRA: I am Aaron Lerner, I am from IMRA. I am still trying to understand for purposes of hasbarah. Israel is telling the world that it considers the construction of rocket and missile in the Gaza Strip to be an "act of terror" or Israel is not taking a position on this? Meckel: I told you. Any act of terror will be a violation. IMRA: Is Israel considering it to be an "act of terror" to ... Meckel: You ask it another ten times. IMRA: You are not answering the question. You are not answering if Israel would consider it to be an act of terror. Meckel: I am sort of busy here. IMRA (in Hebrew): You are not giving an explanation. Phone line cut off. Dr. Aaron Lerner is Director of IMRA, Independent Media Review and Analysis, an Israel-based news organization which provides an extensive digest of media, polls and significant interviews and events relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il Write him at imra@netvision.net.il |
|
CEASEFIRE BACKFIRE?
Posted by Jonathan Schanzer, June 19, 2008. |
|
Palestinian Rocket Report An Egyptian-brokered, six-month truce between Israel and Hamas took hold this morning. Both sides have voiced their misgivings about the potential for the ceasefire to last. Indeed, just before the calm took hold, 30 rockets were fired from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip into Israel. Looking forward, there are numerous reasons to believe that this ceasefire will backfire on Israel, or even weaken its advantage over Hamas. The Jerusalem Post notes that previous declarations of tahdiyeh (Arabic for "period of calm") casts doubt on "the likelihood of this latest truce holding at all." In February 2005, a similar ceasefire was announced, lasting until June 2006. "But the interim was fraught with rocket attacks on Israeli territory." At one point, "dozens of rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel, killing a 22 year-old woman." But, even if the calm lasts to term, one key question lingers: how can it strengthen Israel's long-term strategic position? Celebrated historian Michael Oren notes that the ceasefire is providing Hamas with an opportunity to "regroup and rearm." As far back as 2002, Seth Wikas of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy noted that throughout the Oslo years (1993-2000), Hamas offered nine ceasefires to Israel. In many cases, they followed periods of confrontation with the Fatah-backed Palestinian Authority, Hamas' political rival. Wikas notes, in fact, that all Hamas ceasefire offers have come at a time when "Hamas needed a 'breather' –– a moment to step back and regroup after an organizationally exhausting confrontation with a more powerful foe (Israel or the PA)." In this case, the siege of Gaza has undoubtedly been a drain on Hamas. By granting a ceasefire, Israel is providing Hamas this much-needed "breather," during which Iran can help train additional fighters and provide Hamas with more advanced weapons in preparation for the next round of conflict with Israel. The tahdiyeh provides Hamas with other perks, too. Oren observes that the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire "yields Hamas greater benefits than it might have obtained in direct negotiations. In exchange for giving its word to halt rocket attacks and weapons smuggling, Hamas receives the right to monitor the main border crossings into Gaza and to enforce a truce in the West Bank, where Fatah retains formal control." Thus, the Palestinian Press is proudly touting the ceasefire as a Hamas victory over the "Zionist enemy." Isam Shawar in the Palestinian newspaper Filastin notes that, "Hamas proved that it is impossible to destroy or even weaken... In the end, Israel found that a truce with Hamas is the best and least damaging solution." Ibrahim Ibrash in the Palestinian newspaper al-Ayyam further states that by accepting the truce, "Israel accepts coexistence not with a national unity government of which Hamas is a part, but with a Hamas government and authority exclusively." As Jonathan Dahoah Halevy explains, the agreement is an "important achievement for Hamas. Hamas will gain the recognition it wants as the legitimate ruler of the Gaza Strip. Despite the fact that the Israeli government has defined Hamas-ruled Gaza as a hostile entity, Israel agreed to the continuation of trade with it, and even recognized the hostile entity's authority to operate the Rafah crossing. Hamas regards that as immensely important and wants to exploit it as a lever to open the door to official relations with Europe, and to have itself removed from the various lists of terrorist organizations." Among the other disconcerting results of the agreement was the announcement by Robert Serry, the U.N.'s special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, that the truce could create conditions for the deployment of U.N. peacekeepers in the Gaza Strip. The U.N., of course, has a sub-dismal record of protecting Israel, from allowing five Arab nations to invade the Jewish state in 1948 to watching Hizbullah launch more than 10,000 rockets into Israel in 2006. It must also be noted that the so-called "armed wing" of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, noted on their English-language website that they viewed the ceasefire as a means "to promote the option of resistance." A brief survey of the rest of the site reveals that the group is eager to renew its war with Israel. This comes as no surprise. As Wikas notes, throughout Hamas' string of ceasefires in the 1990s, its leaders "continued to support the goals of the original Hamas charter, i.e., the creation, through religiously sanctioned violence, of an Islamic state" in place of Israel. Thus, Ephraim Kam, deputy director of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), a Tel Aviv University think tank, notes that the truce "will just be a postponement of the unavoidable clash which might take place under even worse conditions, in which Hamas will have more sophisticated weapons and be better trained." Prime Minister Olmert recently stated that the release of abducted Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldier Gilad Shalit was one of the key conditions for truce. Indeed, many Israelis believe that recovering Shalit would outweigh all other risks associated with the tahdiyeh. Yet his release was never stipulated, and the Hamas website now has a prominently-positioned posting entitled "Truce Without Shalit." Should this kidnapped soldier not be recovered –– and perhaps even if he is –– the dangers of the tahdiyeh appear to vastly outweigh the benefits. Jonathan Schanzer, a former Treasury intelligence analyst, is Director of Policy for the Jewish Policy Center, editor of inFOCUS Quarterly, and author of the forthcoming Hamas vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine (Palgrave, November 2008). This article appeared today on the Jewish Policy Center website
|
|
THERE IS A MILITARY SOLUTION TO TERROR
Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, June 19, 2008. |
|
This was written by Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board. It appeared June 3, 2008 in the Wall Street Journal. |
|
Sadr City in Baghdad, the northeastern districts of Sri Lanka and the Guaviare Province of Colombia have little in common culturally, historically or politically. However, they are crucial reference points on a global map in which long-running insurgencies suddenly find themselves on the verge of defeat. For the week of May 16-23, there were 300 "violent incidents" in Iraq. That's down from 1,600 last June and the lowest recorded Since March 2004. Al Qaeda has been crushed by a combination of U.S. arms and Sunni tribal resistance. On the Shiite side, Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army was routed by Iraqi troops in Basra and later crumbled in its Sadr City stronghold. In Colombia the 44 year old FARC guerrilla movement is now at its lowest ebb. Three of its top commanders died in March, and the number of FARC attacks is down by more than two-thirds since 2002. In the face of a stepped-up campaign by the Colombian military (funded, equipped and trained by the U.S.), the group is now experiencing mass desertions. Former FARC leaders describe a movement that is losing any semblance of ideological coherence and operational effectiveness. In Sri Lanka, a military offensive by the government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa has wrested control of seven of the nine districts previously held by the rebel group LTTE, better known as the Tamil Tigers. Mr. Rajapaksa now promises victory by the end of the year, even as the Tigers continue to launch high profile terrorist attacks. All this is good news in its own right. Better yet, it explodes the mindless shibboleth that there is "no military solution" when it comes to dealing with insurgencies. On the Contrary, it turns out that the best way to end an insurgency is, quite simply, to beat it. Why was this not obvious before? (And why is this not so obvious to the Israelis, never mind the US. Jsk). When military strategies fail –– as they did in Vietnam while the U.S. pursued the tactics of attrition, or in Iraq prior to the surge, the idea that there can be no military solution has a way of taking hold with Civilians and generals eager to deflect blame. This is how we arrived at the notion that "political reconciliation" is pre-condition of military success, not a result of it. There's also a tendency to misjudge the alms and ambitions of the insurgents –– to think they can be mollified via one political concession or another. Former Colombian president Andres Pastrana sought to appease the FARC by ceding to them a territory the size of Switzerland. (Just the Israelis have foolishly given up Gaza and in the suicide business of giving up the Golan and Judea and Samaria, G-d forbid. Jsk). The predictable result was to embolden the terrorists who were adept at sensing and exploiting weariness. The deeper problem here is the belief that the best way to deal with insurgents is to address the "root causes" of the grievance (a la Cond. Rice –– jsk) that purportedly prompted them to take up arms. But, what most of these insurgents seek isn't social or moral re-dress. It's absolute power. Like other "libertarion movements" (the PLO comes to mind), the Tigers are notorious for killing other Tamils seen as less than hard line in their views of the conflict. The failure to defeat these insurgencies thus becomes the primary obstacle to achieving a reasonable political settlement acceptable to both sides. This isn't to say that political strategies shouldn't be pursued in tandem with military ones. Gen. David Petraeus was shrewd to exploit the growing enmity between al Qaeda and their Sunni hosts by offering former insurgents a place in the country's security forces as "Sons of Iraq." (The liberal use of "emergency funds" aka political bribes also helped.) Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has more than just extended amnesty for "demobilized" guerillas; he's also given them jobs in the army. But these political approaches only work when the intended beneficiaries can be reasonably confident that they are joining the winning side. Nobody was abandoning the FARC when Mr. Pastrana lay prostrate before it. It was only after Mr. Uribe turned the guerrilla lifestyle into a nightmare that the movement's luster finally started to fade. Defeating an insurgency is never easy even with the best strategies and circumstances. Insurgents rarely declare surrender, and breakaway factions can create a perception of menace even when their actual strength is minuscule, It helps when the top insurgent leaders are killed or captured: Peru's Shining Path, for instance, mostly collapsed with the capture of Abimael Guzmán. Yet, the Kurdish PKK is now resurgent nine years after the imprisonment of Abdullah Ocalan, thanks to the sanctuary it enjoys in Northern Iraq. Still, it's no small thing that neither the PKK nor the Shining Path are capable of killing tens of thousands of people and terrorizing whole societies, as they were in the 1980s. Among other things, beating an insurgency allows a genuine process of reconciliation and redress to take place, and in a spirit of malice toward none. But, those are words best spoken after the terrible swift sword has done its work. Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America and hosts the Israel Commentary website (http://www.israel-commentary.org). |
|
A SIMMERING HATRED
Posted by Saul Goldman, June 19, 2008. |
|
This was written by Sam Ser and it appeared in the Jerusalem
Post
|
|
'Anti-Semitism inherent in Islam can only be eradicated' With common motifs spanning from North Africa to India, from the eighth century to the 21st century and from Sunnis to Shi'ites and Sufis as well, anti-Semitism cannot be explained by cultural influences but is, in fact, inherently Islamic Andrew Bostom has bats in his belfry. He literally has bats flying around in his home. Speaking with The Jerusalem Post about the release of his new book, The Legacy of Anti-Semitism in Islam, Bostom is still breathing heavily from chasing away the unwelcome guests. In his writing, Bostom tries to chase away a different kind of demon: the pervasive belief that the anti-Semitism common to so many Muslims today is a modern, and alien, influence on what more than 1 billion people call "the religion of peace." One look at the cover art of The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism is all it takes to discern what Bostom thinks of that. Alfred Dehodencq's vividly colorful but starkly ominous painting "Execution of a Moroccan Jewess" is a recreation of the actual public execution, in Tangier in the 1830s, of 17-year-old Sol Hachuel, who was falsely accused of converting to, and then renouncing, Islam. In an introductory note on the painting and on the heartbreaking tale, Bostom asserts that Sol's cruel fate was shared by countless Jews over more than a dozen centuries, wherever Muslims ruled. Then, in the several hundred pages that follow, he proves it. The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism calls to mind the work of Bat Yeor, who over the past 20 years has practically single-handedly forced recognition of the oppression inherent in what she calls dhimmitude –– the institution of inferiority, humiliation and obedience that Muslims demand of non-Muslims under their control. But Bostom, who considers Bat Yeor a mentor, goes a step further. He provides an extraordinarily thorough look at the history of Islamic anti-Semitism in practice, from the dawn of the religion until today and in every place where Muslims predominated, using first-hand accounts of renowned Muslim scholars and historians as well as Western observers. The questions facing Muslims today –– Will they deny this religiously motivated hatred? Excuse it? Use it for political gain? Reject it and reform Islam? –– all require an in-depth examination of the Koran, the hadith (sayings and deeds of Muhammad and his companions), and the sira (the biography of Muhammad) as the textual roots of this hatred. And that is what Bostom provides in The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism. What makes this work truly unique, though, is that Bostom had virtually no knowledge of Islam prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks. He is an epidemiologist and clinical nutritionist from New England who spends the vast majority of his time researching renal diseases. "I wanted to know what had motivated the terrorists," says Bostom, who grew up in New York. So, on the afternoon of September 11, "I grabbed a couple of books at a bookstore on the way home and read them that night. But they were so treacle-y and so transparently apologetic." The contradiction between the Islam espoused by the terrorists and the religion described in the books, he says, "just didn't make any sense." In search of deeper analyses of Islam, Bostom began exhausting the resources of local libraries. "I was quite interested in learning more about the history and the
theology of jihad," he says. (The Legacy of Islamic
Anti-Semitism is essentially the continuation of his 2005 book
The Legacy of Jihad in Islam.) "The model for me was to go back
and look at essays written by great Orientalists and materials that I
felt had fallen by the wayside. Of special interest were materials
that were not available in English, for which I sought out Arabic and
Farsi translators. Almost all my primary sources were Muslim
scholars."
WHILE SEARCHING for the roots of jihad, Bostom found the roots of Islam's Jew-hatred. More often than not, they were intertwined. "As I was putting the first book together, I came across Ahmad Sirhindi," he explains. "He was an Indian Sufi who was enraged by the reforms of Moghul Akbar, who abolished the jizya [poll tax]. This enraged the orthodox ulema [scholars], one of the chief representatives of whom was Sirhindi. Amongst his virulent tracts against the moghul he says, 'Whenever a Jew is killed, it is for the benefit of Islam.' Now, this is a 16th-17th century anti-Hindu ideologue, and there's no evidence that he ever had contact with a Jew. So I was like, 'Where on earth did this come from?'" Bostom looked first to the Koran for an explanation. "When I put together the Koranic verses on the Jews," he continues, "they read like an indictment, prosecution and conviction. It was virulently anti-Semitic. Going into the hadith and the histories of Muhammad –– where his assassination is attributed to a Khybar Jewess, for example –– only strengthened this conviction. "So when I juxtaposed that with the notion that there was no theological anti-Semitism in Islam, it was stunning. It's just so in-your-face that to claim that the foundational sources don't create anti-Semitism or aren't inherently anti-Semitic... it's absurd." Forced conversions, rapes, pogroms, the wholesale slaughter of Jews in North Africa during the Almohad invasions of the 12th century and innumerable other incidents catalogued in The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism attest that this Jew hatred was more than a literary holdover of Muhammad's contempt for the Jews for rejecting his prophecies. Bostom also makes it plain that, with common motifs spanning from North Africa to India, from the eighth century to the 21st century and from Sunnis to Shi'ites and Sufis as well, anti-Semitism cannot be explained by cultural influences but is, in fact, inherently Islamic. It is that point, Bostom says, that must be addressed if any change is to occur. "The history has to be recognized and the doctrine has to be changed," he says. "I think these institutions are crying out to be reformed, and the history that they've engendered, to be owned up to. That's the most important thing that I think has to happen." WITH The Legacy of Jihad in Islam and, now, The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism, Bostom has spent the past several years pointing out the ugly sides of Islam. That makes the 52-year-old a target for accusations that he is anti-Muslim –– accusations that he says are unfair and that only serve to distract from the problems at issue. "First of all," he says, "I'm not talking about specific Muslims, I'm talking about doctrine and history. But when I point out what this doctrine and history is, the response I get from Muslims is, 'What's wrong with it?' Bat Yeor writes that all the major scourges of the West have been recognized, while those of the Muslim world have not. This fundamental absence of mea culpa in the Muslim world is a problem, and I think it's at the heart of the failure of these institutions to reform themselves. [Pointing this out] is not a question of demonization. It's a question of very destructive institutions that have to change. And it's not going to change by applying whitewash to these doctrines, whether by Muslims or by non-Muslims." There is a sense of urgency in Bostom's words, though not a sense of panic. He cites the recommendations of Ibn Warraq, the formidable secularist thinker who wrote the foreword to both of Bostom's books, regarding educational reforms for the Muslim world. He urges Muslims "to say that radicalism is a dead limb that has to be chopped off because, frankly, their society is bigger than just that." And ultimately, when asked what he expects people –– Muslims and non-Muslims –– to do with the information in The Legacy of Jihad in Islam and The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism, Bostom answers: "I want them to understand the magnitude and the depth of the problem. And I want them to understand that this problem will not go away without discussion, without a mea culpa on the part of the Muslims, and that it's the obligation on the part of the non-Muslims to encourage these reforms to take place. "I think that it can't be left up to Muslims themselves, because that hasn't worked. Of course, in the long term, it will have to come from within. But in the meantime," Bostom concludes, "non-Muslims are going to have to defend themselves and to demand a change." Contact Saul Goldman at gold7910@bellsouth.net |
|
THE HAMAS INTEREST IN THE TAHDIYA (TEMPORARY TRUCE) WITH ISRAEL
Posted by JCPA, June 19, 2008. |
|
This was written by Jonathan Dahoah Halevi, who is a senior researcher of the Middle East and radical Islam at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He is a founder of the Orient Research Group Ltd. and is a former advisor to the Policy Planning Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It was published as a JCPA Jerusalem Issue Brief by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (http://www.jcpa.org). |
After eight years of armed Intifada, countless Palestinian terrorist attacks, and more than 7,000 rockets fired against civilians in Israel, the Egyptian government succeeded in securing an agreement by Israel and Hamas for a cease-fire that took effect at 6:00 a.m. on June 19, 2008. Officially, the Israeli government argues that there is no understanding with Hamas, but only with Egypt. However, that formalism is not necessarily the perception of the international community. The main terms of the unwritten agreement include the following:
Hamas regards the temporary cease-fire as a tahdiya and not a hudna. The difference between the two Arabic terms is substantial. Hudna means "truce," which is more concrete than tahdiya –– "a period of calm" –– which Hamas often uses to describe a simple cease-fire. In traditional Islamic thought, a hudna is negotiated between an Islamic entity and a non-Islamic entity, but it can be reversed the moment the Islamic side has gained sufficient strength to resume fighting. Nevertheless, a hudna implies recognition of the other party's actual existence, without acknowledging its legitimacy. A tahdiya has less standing than a hudna. Khaled Mashaal, Hamas' leader, and his deputy in leadership, Musa Abu Marzouq, elaborated in recent months their interpretation of a tahdiya. In an interview with Al-Jazeera (April 26, 2008), Mashaal clarified that for Hamas, a tahdiya is "a tactic in conflict management and a phase in the framework of the resistance [meaning all forms of struggle]." He added that it "is not unusual for the resistance...to escalate sometimes and to retreat a bit sometimes as the tide does....The tahdiya creates a formulation that will force Israel...to remove the siege...and if it happens it will be a remarkable achievement....We are speaking of a tactical tahdiya....As long as there is occupation, there is no other way but resistance."(2) When asked about Mashaal's "tactical tahdiya," Musa Abu Marzouq explained that "the tahdiya is not a strategy or a goal itself, but it is a tactical step in this conflict....Our goal is to liberate our land and to bring about the return of our people. The resistance is a tool to reach this end."(3) Official sources in Israel have explained that Hamas' interest in a lull in the fighting is a result of the "distress" it has suffered from the extended blockade of Gaza.(4) Israel's policy did in fact cause difficulties for Hamas, but these hardships do not explain Hamas' strategic motives for the lull. The organization did not experience "distress" –– neither in a strengthening of the opposition to the Hamas administration, nor in an increase of popular protests against it. In fact, the opposite is true. Even the official Israeli evaluation of Hamas' first year of rule since its military takeover in June 2007 suggests that Hamas has managed to introduce and maintain law and order in the Gaza Strip, strengthen its overall control, suppress opposition, and achieve broad popular support for its policies. Hamas' Motivation: Legitimacy and Recognition Hamas' motives have nothing to do with "distress," but rather with "opportunities" –– that is, the objectives it seeks to attain in the international arena and especially in its own internal political arena. First, the lull in the fighting is meaningless for Hamas; it is not a cease-fire or a truce, but a "temporary" cessation of hostilities with Israel. Next, Hamas is not committed to continuing the lull when the six months run out, and it can use any excuse it chooses to continue its terrorist campaign: Israeli building in the settlements, Israeli measures taken in Jerusalem, or IDF anti-terror measures in the West Bank. Hamas can also send other Palestinian organizations to do its dirty work. The tahdiya agreement for a lull is an important achievement for Hamas. Hamas will gain the recognition it wants as the legitimate ruler of the Gaza Strip. Despite the fact that the Israeli government has defined Hamas-ruled Gaza as a hostile entity, Israel agreed to the continuation of trade with it, and even recognized the hostile entity's authority to operate the Rafah crossing. Hamas regards that as immensely important and wants to exploit it as a lever to open the door to official relations with Europe, and to have itself removed from the various lists of terrorist organizations. Another important objective for Hamas is winning the Palestinian presidential election, which will be held when Mahmoud Abbas finishes his term of office in December. Hamas wants to present itself in the contest as a legitimate ruling body worthy of inheriting the presidency. High-ranking Hamas figures have already stated that the organization will not recognize Abbas' authority as president after December 2008.(5) Hamas is liable to claim that, according to Palestinian law, administrative authority should be passed on to the chairman of the parliament, who is a Hamas leader, or should be decided by the parliament itself, where Hamas has an overwhelming majority. In other words, for Hamas, the lull in the fighting will permit the movement to prepare the field to take over from Abbas, thereby complementing its military takeover of Gaza. Hamas' challenge is also the motivation behind Abbas' desire to talk to Hamas about reaching an understanding about new elections, and it explains why Hamas has rejected the suggestion. Main Implications of the Tahdiya Hamas wants to exploit the lull in the fighting to upgrade its status in the international community in order to gain legitimacy for its campaign for the presidency after Abbas' term is over in December 2008. The cease-fire grants Hamas a golden opportunity to expand its military build-up for the next round of terror and violence. Emulating Hizbullah's strategy, Hamas is striving to acquire longer-range and more destructive missiles to be used for deterrence and as a sword on Israel's neck. Israel has acknowledged Hamas, albeit unwillingly, as the de facto ruling power in Gaza. Israel's acceptance of the cease-fire is a blow to the international war on terror and gives immunity to Hamas and other terrorist organizations in Gaza, including al-Qaeda affiliates. Another diplomatic consequence of the tahdiya will be increasing pressure on Israel to accept a reconciliation agreement between Hamas and Fatah in the future. That could lead to increasing demands on Israel to negotiate a permanent status arrangement with the joint Hamas-Fatah government, while Hamas remains committed to its political program of the elimination of Israel. It is important to recall that the entire Israeli-Palestinian negotiating track since the convening of the Annapolis conference was premised on the exclusion of Hamas and the ultimate achievement of an agreement between the Israeli government and the government of Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah alone. Delaying the release of Cpl. Gilad Shalit to a later phase of the Israel-Hamas arrangement can have a demoralizing effect in Israel, for it sends a message that the recovery of captured soldiers is not the highest priority. Notes 1. http://www.startribune.com/world/20167939.html?
2. http://aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/41C8CBD6-5D3A-4F4B-B952-
3. http://www.alwatan.sy/dindex.php?idn=32872 4. http://news.walla.co.il/?w=/22/1291534 5. http://www.al-sharq.com/DisplayArticle.aspx?xf=
|
|
CHINESE SPY MENG SENTENCED TO 24 MONTHS
Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollard, June 19, 2008. |
|
In yet another almost predictable slap in the face to the American Jewish Community and to Israel, yet another Chinese spy has been sentenced to a ridiculously light sentence relative to the seriousness of the espionage he committed, and particularly when compared to the life sentence that Jonathan Pollard is serving. In addition to a 24 month sentence, Meng was fined $10,000 because he benefited financially from his espionage activities. Jonathan Pollard, on the other hand, who did not benefit financially from his espionage activities, was never fined. Moreover, Pollard unlike Meng, was also never formally accused, indicted, or convicted of harming the United States. With the change in sentencing guidelines since Jonathan Pollard was sentenced, today Pollard would be facing a maximum 10 year sentence. Meng was facing a maximum of 25 years. Would someone like to tell us why Pollard is serving his 23rd year of an unlimited life sentence, while Meng gets 24 months? This is from the Associated Press. |
|
SAN JOSE, Calif. –– An engineer who admitted he tried to sell fighter-pilot training software to the Chinese Navy was sentenced Wednesday to 24 months in federal prison, in the first sentencing for a newly defined intellectual property crime. Xiaodong Sheldon Meng, 44, was sentenced on the rare charge of committing economic espionage against the U.S. It's the most serious crime under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 and involves stealing trade secrets to benefit a foreign government. Only five cases have been filed under the law, three of them in Silicon Valley, which authorities say is fertile ground for trade secret thieves looking to make a quick buck or bolster the technological and military development of foreign nations. Meng didn't speak during the half-hour hearing in U.S. District Court in San Jose. He stood with his hands clasped and head down as Judge Jeremy Fogel handed down a sentence in line with the U.S. Attorney's Office recommended punishment and Meng's plea agreement. Fogel commended Meng's attempts to turn around his life following his arrest in 2004 but said Meng's crime hurt United States national security and deserved prison time. "This is a case where the court has to be merciful but it has to be very firm," Fogel said. Could have gotten 25 years Meng had faced a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison after pleading guilty to two felony counts: economic espionage and exporting controlled military technologies. Because of his lack of a criminal record before this case, prosecutors agreed to seek a far shorter sentence. Outside court, Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Krotoski said it was Meng's focus on profits, not a foreign allegiance, that drove him to steal the trade secrets and to try to sell them to the highest bidder. As such, Meng's crime shouldn't be punished as harshly as someone convicted of spying on the U.S., he said. Meng is a Chinese national with Canadian citizenship who lives in Cupertino, about 45 miles south of San Francisco. "People have this image of a spy, but you can cause a lot of harm without being a spy –– you can damage national security," Krotoski said in an interview. Meng's defense lawyer, Manuel Araujo, said he believed the punishment for his client was still too severe. He described Meng's actions as "stupid" but said his client has undergone a "profound metamorphosis." "For him as an individual it was too harsh," Araujo said. "He's a good man who got caught up in the fast and loose trading of trade secrets. The sentence might open the eyes of people who don't realize the consequences of these actions." Investigators say Meng went around giving sales pitches to Asian military officials for software stolen from his former employer, San Jose-based Quantum3D Inc. No word on whether sale made He was indicted in December 2006 on 36 felony counts alleging he attempted to sell the purloined programs to the Royal Thai Air Force, the Royal Malaysian Air Force and the Navy Research Center in China. Authorities have declined to say whether any of the secrets were successfully sold. Krotoski said officials in China apparently didn't know Meng was trying to sell them stolen trade secrets –– just that they were dealing with a program of high value to the U.S. In addition to serving the prison sentence, Meng is to pay a $10,000 fine. Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to justice4jp@gmail.com and visit the website: http://www.JonathanPollard.org |
|
UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL: ANY MENTION OF THE WORD "SHARIA" IS NOW TABOO
Posted by Robert Spencer, June 19, 2008. |
|
Muslims win battle to prevent criticism of Islam at UN Human Rights Council "On Monday Egypt, Pakistan and Iran angrily protested attempts by a humanist group to link Islam to human rights abuses such as female genital mutilation and so-called honour killing of women." Of course, these have already been linked to Islam by Muslims themselves, and Pakistan and Iran weren't protesting then. In any case, one of the members of the "humanist group" mentioned in this article is a friend, and I will soon have much, much more information here about this incident. Free Speech Death Watch: "Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates," from AP, June 19 (thanks to Twostellas): GENEVA: Muslim countries have won a battle to prevent Islam from being criticised during debates by the UN Human Rights Council. Religions deserve special protection because any debate about faith is bound to be "very complex, very sensitive and very intense", council President Doru-Romulus Costea said Wednesday. Scholars: Only religious scholars should be allowed to discuss matters of faith, he told journalists in Geneva. I.e., soothing, smiling deceivers. While Costea's ban applies to all religions, it was prompted by Muslim countries complaining about references to Islam.... On Monday Egypt, Pakistan and Iran angrily protested attempts by a humanist group to link Islam to human rights abuses such as female genital mutilation and so-called honour killing of women. The interventions sparked a heated debate which threatened to sour the mood of the meeting. The council's resolutions carry no legal weight but are intended to throw a spotlight on governments that abuse their citizens. "This council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth, consequently we should not do it," Costea ruled after an emergency break to calm the situation. Read the entire story including the transcript at
Contact Robert Spencer at the website: www.jihadwatch.org This article is archived at
|
|
CANDIDATES AT AIPAC; WHY A CEASEFIRE; UNETHICAL SECRETARY-GENERAL; INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 19, 2008. |
|
CANDIDATE MCCAIN'S SPEECH The speaker praised Pres. Truman as a friend of Israel, because he recognized Israel. [The recognition was a personal favor. Truman then embargoed arms shipments to Israel. HST was no friend. His friendship for Israel is a myth. It is an example of how ignorant people, including most Jews, are about the Mideast.] Candidate McCain wants the US to maintain Israel's military "qualitative edge," because it has small margin for survival. [A "small margin" means Israel needs more than an "edge." The term, "qualitative edge" is one of those constantly and unthinkingly repeated catch-phrases that is not prudent and not honored. It keeps the Arabs tempted to make war and inflict high casualties on Israeli. The US arms some of Israel's enemies, much with taxpayer funds. Egypt already has military superiority over Israel in certain respects. What did McCain learn on the Senate Armed Services Committee all those years? Not much about Israel.] He pointed out that even under the supposedly moderate Pres. Khatami, Iran continued its secret nuclear weapons development. A US summit with Iran would dishearten dissidents there. [The latter point is more perceptive than Obama's. McCain shows some understanding that moderation among Muslims may be just in how they present themselves rather than in their policies.] As for the P.A. Arabs, McCain continued, most want a better and less violent life. Hamas doesn't. [McCain does not understand their culture nor their polls. Their culture is violent, their religion, intolerant, their means, barbaric. They have been indoctrinated into putting war against non-believers before prosperity. Who among them opposes violence? Not Abbas, he praises terrorists.] After citing the massive bombardment of an Israeli city and the personal grief that results, he said, "No nation in the world would allow its population to be attacked so incessantly, to be killed and intimidated so mercilessly without responding. And the nation of Israel is no exception. Prime Minister Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are engaged in talks that all of us hope will yield progress toward peace." [Glad he recognizes and sympathizes with Israeli victims of Muslim aggression and brutality. But when he says that no country would allow its population to be attacked without responding, he should have put it, "no other country." Israel does let its people get attacked. Its few raids on a small percentage of terrorists does not count. It does not do. The negotiations don't count, and they have no plan for stopping Hamas, not that Fatah would be any better, for its members attack Israelis too. Why doesn't McCain know that? It is because he is uninformed and takes his cues from the biased reporting and general but faulty suppositions.] He said that US progress in Iraq results from "the new strategy that Sen. Obama vehemently opposed" and "predicted would fail when he voted to cut off funds for our forces in Iraq. He now says he intends to withdraw combat troops from Iraq one to two brigades per month until they're all removed." Obama would withdraw troops "regardless of the conditions in Iraq, regardless of the consequences for our national security, regardless of Israel's security and in disregard of the best advice of our Commander's on the ground. This course will result in a catastrophe. If our troops are ordered to make a forced retreat we risk all out civil war genocide and a failed state in the heart of the Middle East. Al Qaeda terrorists would rejoice in the defeat of the United States; allowing a potential terrorist sanctuary would profoundly affect the security of the United States, Israel, and our other friends and would invite further intervention from Iraq's neighbors, including a very much emboldened Iran." [Excellent analysis. Here he has analyzed the conventional information better than Obama.] Finally, McCain praised Israel as a "great democracy" that loves justice, just like the US, its partner in seeking peace (IMRA, 6/4). [Israel wants peace, but the State Dept. wants to dismember Israel. McCain does not know that the State Dept. is Israel's worst enemy, having curbed and worked to reverse all its military victories and make its borders insecure. He has the popular misconception that Israel is democratic. Few know that it treats dissident Jews unjustly] OBAMA'S SPEECH TO AIPAC Oh how he favors Israel and the Jewish people! His speech was full of emotional platitudes, which apparently is all that one needs to impress AIPAC. He, too, mentioned a "qualitative advantage" for Israel's military, without suggesting that the US stop subsidizing Egypt's military. If we cut out subsidy of Arab armies, etc., we could cut out subsidy of Israel, and save $6 billion a year. He, too, made it seem as if the only terrorists in the P.A. are in Gaza and that the US is working with moderate Palestinian Arabs who crack down on terrorism. Actually, Abbas is a life-long terrorist and still indoctrinates in favor of aggression against Israel. His police commit terrorism and his organization, Fatah, never ceased. The checkpoints in Judea-Samaria, after all, were erected to curb his terrorist forces. He does not crack down on terrorism, he protects it. He protects it by shielding fugitives, getting terrorists released though many resume terrorism, honoring terrorists, and running or allowing the P.A. media, schools, and mosques to preach bigotry and murder. Candidate Obama misrepresents the existing situation. What to do? Obama said, "Egypt must cut off the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. Israel can also advance the cause of peace by taking appropriate steps –– consistent with its security –– to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements –– as it agreed to with the Bush Administration at Annapolis." "Egypt must," huh? Who will make it? Would Obama cut off military aid to Egypt, a proven aggressor, unless it stops working against Israel and peace? He didn't say. Then why should we give him any credence? The steps Obama recommends for Israel are not "consistent with its security. "Ease the freedom of movement" means taking down the checkpoints that bar terrorists. It does not occur to Obama to ask why, if Abbas were so moderate, and if his people were so non-violent, is terrorism from his area a constant menace to Israel. Asking that would involve independent thought. Our candidates rarely indulge. What the anti-Zionist regime agreed to, often under US pressure, should not be held against Israel for not conforming with, when the Arabs don't comply with any of their agreements and are continuing the struggle against Israel. He should ask why the US demanded such conditions that strengthen the P.A., committed to war on Israel. Why shouldn't Israel build communities in certain parts of Judea-Samaria, its homeland? Well, because Obama wants an Arab state there, though neither he nor anybody else has explained, at least not without misrepresenting history and international law, why there would be one. He said such a state should be peaceful. There is nothing about the P.A. that is peaceful. It is a bigoted, aggressive, violent, lawless place, whose entire culture mitigates against peace and, so far, against prosperity. May it become too poor to afford weapons! He says that the new Arab state should be contiguous and Israel should have secure borders. He said it emotionally, which probably impressed the impressionable audience. But what he said is inconsistent. A contiguous P.A. means a non-contiguous Israel. Did he look at a map, and see that to make the two parts of the P.A., with Israel in between, means cutting a corridor through Israel and making it non-contiguous? Without the Territories, Israel cannot have secure borders, as a report by the US Chiefs of Staff pointed out. Have the candidates heard of that report? It was sober. They sound drunk. The rest of his speech was about the use of diplomacy (IMRA, 6/4). It was too general. We should say this and we should propose that. He accused the Bush administration of not saying and proposing those things, although they did. He gives no indication why he should be thought better able to do it. What is frightening about his speech is its not appreciating the limits of US power. He wants to work with Russia and China, but they and the UNO are rogues. The US economy lacks the power needed to police the world. Obama would spend our resources and indebt us further. We'd end up with less power. As for terrorism, he, too, would favor some terrorists. No sense of reality! WHAT DOES THE WORLD KNOW ABOUT ISRAEL? "The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967." Abbas said about candidate Obama's support for keeping Jerusalem undivided and Israel's capital (IMRA, 6/4). I think that that Obama is pandering as usual for votes. What is Obama trying to do, forfeit the endorsement of Hamas and Iran? What does the world know about Israel? Does it know that the Old City of Jerusalem was seized in naked aggression by the Arab Legion, invading from Jordan? Does the world know that the Old City, including the holy places, was oppressed, neglected, and used as a base for firing into the New City? Does it know that in 1967, Israeli forces liberated the city from that oppression and neglect? Does Abbas know that? He's just making propaganda. WHY DOES ISRAELI GOVT. WANT A CEASEFIRE The government of Israel wants a ceasefire, to still criticism of it for not protecting cities of Israel under bombardment from Gaza. The government knows that Hamas would use a ceasefire to build up its forces. Built up forces eventually would inflict more casualties and better defend itself from retaliation. But that would be a couple of months away. The regime does not think that far ahead (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 6/5). By contrast, the Arabs do plan ahead. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1701 In violation of that Resolution, Hizbullah is fortifying villages both on the border and deeper into Lebanon. Syria is arming it. Hizbullah has extorted enough legislative votes to veto action against it. Israel's Foreign Min. Livni takes credit as her one foreign policy achievement for having obtained that Resolution, but not blame for its foreseeable failure (IMRA, 6/4). She may replace Olmert! The Arabs often accuse Israel of violating UNO resolutions. Their accusations fail to differentiate between voluntary and mandatory resolutions. 1701 is mandatory. The Arabs are the violators of it and of other resolutions. SUING SUPPLIER OF GAS TO GAZA Shurat Ha-Din is suing through US courts an Israeli company having businesses in the US and supplying gas to Gaza. Hamas steals more than half of that gas. This means that the company is indirectly supplying Hamas, a terrorist organization. US law prohibits aid to terrorism (IMRA, 6/4). Why not sue companies supplying the rest of the P.A., since they are terrorist, too? DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MCCAIN & OBAMA Candidate Obama depicted the unsettled Arab-Israel conflict as giving an pretext for Islamists to attack Israel, etc.. Candidate McCain derided the notion that Islamists need a pretext for what their ideology commands them. Settle the Arab-Israel conflict, and Islamism still would confront us. [Can't settle the Arab-Israel conflict without deeply reforming Islam. Basic to Islam is recapturing territory formerly conquered by Islam.] What Obama has been saying lately contradicts his long-held views (Daniel Pipes #860, 6/5.) That's politics, Obama style. SOLAR ISRAEL The Israel Electric Company is going to pay homeowners four times the going rate for electricity, for electricity generated from solar panels the owners install. Installation costs about $12,000 per house (Arutz-7, 6/5). ARABS DONATE TO CHINA S. Arabia and the UAE each donated $50 million for victims of China's earthquake. That is more than any other country gave (Arutz-7, 6/5). Israel sent rescue teams. That is more helpful. China does not need money. It has extensive reserves of money and it spends increasingly on its military. Formerly, the Arabs donated only to Muslim states or causes. Saudi Arabia donated mostly for mosques and murder. SECRETARY-GENERAL'S EVEN-HANDEDNESS Secretary-General Ban condemned Gaza terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians and an Israeli raid on terrorists, which is said to have killed an Arab girl, by mistake. He said Israel has a right to defend itself but must exercise caution against striking civilians (IMRA, 6/5). Israel hardly kills civilians, because it does take precautions. It doesn't need admonition from Sec. Ban. Why did he utter one without suggesting any way by which Israel could have taken more precautions? I think he was trying to be even-handed. That is unethical. Israel sometimes suspends raids in order to protect those bigoted civilians in Gaza. Hamas seeks out Jewish civilians to murder. Even-handedness between them is blind morality that restrains Israeli defense and comforts terrorist planners. The terrorists know they won't get condemned much, not when Israeli defense is equated with their offensiveness. MY JOKE ABOUT OBAMA As Sen. Obama boarded a plane for the campaign stop in Florida, his aide handed him a copy of his speech for that day. Opening the folder, the candidate found two speeches. "Al," he inquired, "which speech do I give, today? The one lamenting US foreign policy being hostage to the Israel lobby, or the one to AIPAC upholding the security of Israel, 'side-by-side' with another Palestinian Arab state made contiguous by bisecting Israel and depriving Israel of secure borders?" The term, "side-by-side," is an outrageous deception. It invokes a sentiment of neighborliness, whereas the Palestinian Arabs are raised to hate and kill Jews. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT When I first started my column on the Arab-Israel conflict about 13 years ago, nationalism already was held in ill repute by liberals. They were remembering its abuse by German, Italy, and Japan, leading up to WWII. They did not object to certain other nationalism, such as by the Arabs or Chinese. Their inconsistency seems to be part of an anti-Western, anti-American, or anti-Zionist ideology. Thus they criticized Israeli restrictions on citizenship but not Arab restrictions. More recently, some liberals told me the US should submerge its sovereignty into international organizations. Considering how undemocratic and incompetent such organizations are, I disagree. One friend defended the International Criminal Court, which the US refuses to join. I replied that its judges may be biased against the US. She claimed they would be professional, but we know that many countries have political judges, just as the Olympics do. The NY Sun recently described attempts by government and individuals in Britain to arrest an Israeli general, a US officer, and a US Ambassador for alleged war crimes. Foreign countries are asserting jurisdiction over what occurred in foreign countries and in which they have no specific interest. The charges, however, are motivated by politics and religious bias, not concern over criminality. The trumped up charges are liable to be heard by a kangaroo court. The US is right to keep off that bandwagon. We owe thanks to Pres. Bush for it. If only Bush were tougher. He has backed off from standing up for freedom. I wish that he had continually challenged the assaults on our freedom by Muslims, internationalists, etc.. Unfortunately, he couldn't take media criticism. It was a storm of bullying. I meet Europeans who revile Pres. Bush, to me. I don't take it from them, especially not from Europeans or liberals, who don't understand world affairs, not that I am a fan of Bush. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear regularly in 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 |
|
PROPAGANDA AGAINST ISRAEL: THE MOHAMMED AL DURAH CASE AND STAGING REALITY IN THE MEDIA
Posted by Sacha Stawski, June 18, 2008. |
|
This article was written by Esther Shapira, producer at Hessen Broadcasting and already had questioned the official Palestinian version of the Mohammed Al Durah case in her 2002 documentary film "Three Bullets and a Dead Child". It appeared on the European Forum on Antisemitism
|
|
A few weeks ago, a French appellate court overturned the defamation conviction of Philippe Karsenty, who operates an independent news agency. Karsenty had described the Al Durah case as a "masquerade" that "does dishonor to France and its state-run television". The pictures went around the world in autumn 2000: Gunshots strike a Palestinian child in his father's arms –– shots fired by Israeli soldiers. And the French television reporter's voiceover: "Mohammed is dead, his father gravely injured." Ever since, young Mohammed Al Durah has been fêted as a martyr in the Arab world and the picture used for political purposes. But did it really happen that way? A few weeks ago, a French appellate court overturned the defamation conviction of Philippe Karsenty, who operates an independent news agency. Karsenty had described the Al Durah case as a "masquerade" that "does dishonor to France and its state-run television". Three shots supposedly struck Mohammed, then 12 years old, at least one of which was purportedly fatal. Talal Abu Rahme, the Palestinian cameraman for France 2 state television, filmed the dramatic scene that unleashed worldwide indignation and pilloried the Israeli army as cold-blooded child murderers. The scene became a beacon, young Mohammed an icon of the Intifada. Mohammed the martyr. The scene shot by Talal Abu Rahme was broadcast countless times on Palestinian TV, with one image spliced in: an Israeli soldier, shooting. Through this manipulation, the clip acquired the unambiguousness lacking in the original footage. In the Arab world, however, no further evidence was needed. Countless streets and squares were named after Mohammed Al Durah; films, songs and poems lauded the martyr and stamps, even toilet paper, were manufactured with his likeness. Tunesia renamed the street in front of Yassir Arafat's former villa "Mohammed Al Durah Street", Egypt did the same with the street in front of the Israeli embassy. In Mali's capital, there is a "Square of the Palestinian Child Martyrs". Enraged demonstrators demanded Israel's destruction, and Muslims were exhorted to avenge Mohammed Al Durah on TV and the Internet, in Friday sermons and leaflets –– a call that became grisly reality with the Islamists' brutal beheading of American journalist Daniel Pearl. In the video of his execution, the "death sentence" was justified as revenge for the "murder" of Mohammed Al Durah. Yet we still don't know what actually happened that day –– on the contrary. Eight years later, there are more questions and doubts about the scene than there were at the time. Supposed certainty has yielded to the suspicion that possibly we were duped by a huge Palestinian propaganda hoax. But didn't we see with our own eyes how young Mohammed was shot and finally lay dead in the lap of his gravely wounded father? No, we did not. Fifty-four seconds of the footage that Talal Abu Rahme shot that day at Netzarim Junction were made public, and only 31 seconds show father and son. Charles Enderlin, the correspondent who edited the film and provided the commentary, was not himself at the scene. He relied on his cameraman's account. In the film's voiceover, it's said that the gunfire came from the direction of the military outpost. And then the decisive sentence: "Mohammed is dead, his father gravely injured." The power of news images and commentary is so great that most viewers are certain that they saw how father and son were struck. But in fact, the film footage shows not one single shot and no blood. We see the two sitting next to each other, see the father looking and gesticulating in the direction of the Israeli outpost, then a hand covers the lens and at the decisive moment, clouds of dust obscure the view. When the picture again becomes clear, Mohammed's head lies in the lap of his father, who seems listless and leans against the wall, his head tilted to one side. Actually, nothing is visible that provides evidence for the assertion that the child is dead, the father gravely injured. Yet it took over a year until clear questions emerged from cautious doubts and inconsistencies openly came to light. Those who wanted precise knowledge about the incident and persistently inquired were immediately suspected of pursuing a political agenda. France 2 also tried through judicial means to quell any doubts as to the authenticity of the broadcast images. Yet all attempts to nip inquiries in the bud failed –– the scene had gained too much symbolic impact. For some, it was visible proof of Israel's murderous policy of occupation and of the legitimacy of the struggle to annihilate the "Zionist creation". For others, it was a key scene in the media war, a prime example of Palestinian propaganda, "Palliwood". What, in the meantime, is unequivocally certain? France 2 always maintained that they released all footage of the scene. This is false. There are at least 10 additional seconds that show father and son. The supposedly final image, for which Charles Enderlin supplied the voiceover "Mohammed is dead", is not the last image that was shot. The take was cut before one sees how Mohammed Al Durah, allegedly dead, raises his head and looks into the camera. The additional seconds of footage were first shown in the Paris courtroom on November 14, 2007. France 2 had taken Philippe Karsenty to court for libel; he had publicly maintained that France 2 falsely spread information that Mohammed Al Durah had been shot dead in the scene. Yet fundamentally, not Karsenty, but France 2 and its correspondent Charles Enderlin were on trial. It was a matter of the station's credibility. So Karsenty's acquittal also is an accusation against Charles Enderlin and France 2. The verdict confirms that the Mohammed Al Durah case is by no means closed. And during the trial, the list of inconsistencies in the media version of the shooting of Mohammed Al Durah by Israeli soldiers became significantly longer. For seven years, France 2 said there were 27 minutes on the videocassette. Then, to an astonished audience at the Paris court, the station said there had been an error. There were only 18 minutes. At first glance, these were so unspectacular that it was unclear why they were kept so long under lock and key. They showed youths throwing stones and incendiary devices at the Israeli military outpost without any discernable reaction from the Israeli soldiers. They showed "for camera only" scenes that, however, could be recognized as such only by a practiced observer. "For camera only" –– this is what Israeli soldiers call it when demonstrators simulate injury and have themselves picked up by ambulances. Some inconsequential interviews followed. Only then came the well-known sequence with father and son, now for the first time with the 10 seconds in which the allegedly dead boy suddenly raises his head and briefly looks into the camera. What did Talal Abu Rahme really film on that day? What happened to Mohammed Al Durah? The list of contradictions grows longer. Ballistic analysis shows that, from their position, the soldiers could hardly have been the shooters. Measurements of the bullet holes in the wall speak against this scenario. It's also highly improbable that sharpshooters would need 45 minutes to hit a stationary target. But that's how long father and son were under sustained fire, according to Talal Abu Rahme's testimony. And why would soldiers fire at those two, of all people, while leaving those attacking the outpost with stones and incendiary devices completely alone? Finally there are the contradictory statements as to the length of the filmed footage. Talal Abu Rahme said he shot 6 minutes of the dramatic scene. Charles Enderlin initially maintained that all the footage was released. According to him, it was only 31 seconds. He later added that the scene had been cut by just one take, which would have shown the child's horrible death throes. Yet nothing of those death throes is visible in the now-released images. Why not? Either there is more raw footage than stated, or the pictures do not exist. Is an image true to life or genuine, is it realistic or real? Such fine points have long played no role whatsoever on the media war front. The more an image is seen, the more it is assumed to be true. The media image becomes the reality, the basis of public opinion. Its verdict cannot be appealed. In the cemetery near El Bureish in the Gaza Strip, one grave stands out. It is the grave of the martyr Mohammed Al Durah. Emblazoned on the white marble is the inscription: "Those who die in battle do not really die, but live on" –– in paradise, as every devout Moslem is convinced. And in the memory of viewers, who see only the picture they know. Contact Sacha Stawski at sstawski@honestly-concerned.org |
|
AMERICAN/ISRAELI DILEMMA
Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, June 18, 2008. |
|
A funny thing happened right after Iran promised not to build a nuclear bomb. It built one anyway. There is absolutely no way the presumably sane world, relying on toothless sanctions and rhetorical blather, can be assured the Persian pariah state, 'coincidentally' drenched in oil, will not go nuclear. Period! Will feckless fossil fuel dependent industrial nations patrol Iran, let alone invade or even bomb Iran, fearing that will no doubt lead to a disruption of their liquid energy supplies? Will a heroin addict commit an act disrupting his next fix? C'mon! Get real! There is absolutely no way the West will stop a turbaned Dr. Strangelove cadre of religious zealots from spinning those nuclear centrifuges, unless they embark upon the path less taken, alter their mindless feckless strategies, and actually THINK! Why not give mouthpiece AhMADinejad and those crazy Mullahs an offer they can't refuse? Tell them in no uncertain terms that if their regime actually builds a nuke, no doubt detectable by satellite technology, it will be in charge of monitoring each and every terrorist organization on the planet, each and every kindred spirit regime on the planet, and if just one nuclear incident happens anywhere on the planet, the default responsibility will belong to the Persian upstart nation that would not listen, a presumption will be made that Iran incited that incident, and guess what pal, your toast!!! In other words use a customized M.A.D. a/k/a mutually assured destruction strategy that's not mutual, indeed only maximizes the possibility of obliteration for the Persian Shiite pseudo-empire should it be foolish enough to recklessly stay the nuclear course. Would such a threat deter lunatics that believe in the coming of a 12th Imam whose Holy Grail is to slay the infidel? Would nuclear missiles aimed at Tehran from every direction knock some sense into their addled brains? I think such brinkmanship just might work! Even bizarre Mullahs, when push truly comes to shove, will fold like cheap accordions hawked at an Iranian bazaar, their survival instincts overriding visions of a Shiite style Islamic caliphate that just might glow in the dark. Still, how can we be sure much of the world, of course not including Israel, really feels threatened by a potentially nuclear Iran? It takes no rocket scientist to figure out that a 'believable' promise of 'shock and awe' aimed at those in power would put the kabash on Iran's nuclear ambitions. Hmmm! Let's dig a bit deeper. Iran's nuclear ambitions surely rattle Israel who it threatens to 'wipe off the map.' But what about the United States; what about Europe? Are not these two presumed allies in the midst of a currency war? Are not American dead presidents, etched onto challenged petrodollars, spinning in their graves, aware European icons, etched onto petroeuros, might replace their function as the planet's primary oil trading currency, aware that Iran continues to expand its Bourse, an international oil trading exchange that accepts euros not dollars, when and if effectuated a formidable competitor with petrodollar exchanges, as potent as any nuclear threat to Uncle Sam's economic security, yet as potent as any incentive for Europe to let the Iranians keep spinning their centrifuges as long as they keep on turning the tide toward the petroeuro? Thus the world's superpower uncle and his buddy Israel are in a bind, truly supported by no other nations, including Asian nations, in need of Iranian oil, perhaps willing to dump trillions of U.S. Treasury notes on the open market at a steep discount rather than get involved in Middle East entanglements. Going it alone, even posturing, has a huge downside, especially when a harried Uncle Sam is spread so thin militarily, has surely lost the stomach for further commitments, a fact undoubtedly not lost on Iranian strategists, thus any truly threatening rhetorical bluster coming from but two mouths would likely fizzle exacerbating the ongoing scenario for the U.S. and Israel. Of course, one powerful way to avoid this dire scenario is to convince the U.S. and Europe to merge their currencies, negating a destructive competition, economically allying two major forces thus enabling them to confront Iran's nuclear proclivities in tandem, along with Israel, no doubt convincing kindred spirit nations to do the same. Such a logical move of course would be politically daunting, necessarily overcoming widespread patriotic fervor attached to tampering with national currencies. Indeed, what if that merger does not make it past square one, again forcing the U.S. and Israel to confront an ever strengthening bogeyman in another way? How about fomenting an internal revolution, a scenario that would require overcoming Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard? Is this another long shot? Perhaps, but worth developing! Indeed, there are few good alternatives, aside from merging the dollar and the euro, in dealing with this oil rich fundamentalist Shiite Islamic nation, extending its tentacles by sucking in Syrian Alawites as well as financing terrorist organizations such as Hizbullah and Hamas. Even Sunni heavyweights such as Saudi Arabia would rather make nice nice with its nuke-in progress Persian imperialist OPEC associate, knowing where its pita is buttered, knowing that any disruptions in oil flow due to hostilities would drain the House of Saud of much needed cash to buy even more skyscrapers in America and elsewhere. Not a pretty picture but do not despair! Raw material based economies like Iran rise and fall with the demand for their 'precious' commodities, in this case commodity. If the per barrel price of oil falls substantially, everything else collapses. When 'elite' Revolutionary Guard members begin missing paychecks, perhaps they too will clasp hands with Iran's youthful Western-wannabes, assisting in the literal or figurative tar and feathering of loose lips AhMADinejad, Ayatollah Khameni, their sycophantic minions, and anyone else perceived to be responsible for an economy in shambles. So how does one substantially lower the per barrel price of oil? In the long run, the best way is to develop a cheap efficient alternative fuel. In the short run-here we go again-merge the dollar and euro into one currency. Today's per barrel price is calculated in U.S. greenbacks, ever diminishing in value over time. By stabilizing the dollar, indeed combining it with the euro, it will take less dollar/euros or 'duros' to purchase one barrel of oil. In fact, the merged currency's value could surge presuming a cooperative combined U.S./European Union economy continues to improve. Israel will surely benefit as her virulent enemy Iran morphs into a tolerant more Westernized nation. 'You may say I'm a dreamer, a la John Lennon, but is there a better way? 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 |
|
JEWISH LEADERS: AWOL FROM U.S. –– AND ISRAEL
Posted by Eugene Narrett, June 18, 2008. |
|
Since the Israeli government, pressed vigorously by the U.S. State Department, expelled 9,000 Jews from their homes, farms, schools and synagogues in Gush Katif and Northern Samaria in August 2005, jihadists have showered rockets and mortars on towns, cities and farmers within the 1949 borders of Israel. While this jihad has continued, the response by a corrupt and defeatist Israeli regime has been minimal. During this same time, the 9,000 deported Jews have been dumped throughout Israel in trailer parks. The jobs, permanent residences and compensation they were promised has been lacking. That the "world community" does not mention or care about these brutally displaced Jews is not unusual; but there also has been a failure of mainstream American Jewish leaders to speak publicly against the ethnic cleansing and its bitter aftermath. The "two-state solution" means more expulsions of Jews. The betrayal of the expelled Jews (whose deportation is supposed to bring "peace") and the failure to totally suppress the rocket war on Israel dismays lovers of Israel. One such person is Bernard ("Buddy") Macy of New Jersey who in the past three years has become an impassioned advocate of justice for the deportees and for accountability and meaningful action from American Jewish organizations on behalf of an intact Israel. Macy had served as a recording secretary, fundraiser and trustee for the Jewish Federation in northern New Jersey for 25 years. In February 2006, he resigned to protest the national UJA/UJC refusal to begin emergency funding for the refugees and for the organization's silence about the brutal ethnic cleansing of Jews from Amona, 18 miles north of Jerusalem. Since then, Mr. Macy has pressed actively for mainstream Jewish leadership to assist and educate Americans about the embattled position of the Jewish people in the Promised Land. In response, he has heard that "we don't need another meeting," in other words, "go away and don't disturb our cozy ties to policymakers in Washington." This dismissal now includes the refusal of two prominent American Jewish leaders, Howard Rieger of the United Jewish Communities and Malcolm Hoenlein, head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, to participate in a debate/discussion about the mistreatment of Israel's internal refugees and the fact that Israel's government refuses to respond to the war against it with military action that would truly protect its citizens, suppress Hamas and establish a basis for true peace. Clearly, these topics are of great importance to all Americans and, in fact, to all people. Yet as often happens when the official truth will not bear scrutiny, genuine discussion remains unheard. But the matter is still open; like poverty in the attic, hard truths will not go away. On May 30, 2008, Macy e-mailed Rieger and Hoenlein with an invitation to join in a debate with Dr. Arieh Eldad, member of the Knesset, retired brigadier general and head physician in the IDF, and me, both of whom were prepared to debate. His e-mail and follow-up telephone calls to Rieger and Hoenlein went unanswered. The "leadership" still ducks discussion; no surprise: their posture as champions and helpers of the Jewish people in the Promised Land would be discomfited by a full airing of what they have done (helped sell the "peace processing" of Israel) and failed to do (be genuine, vigorous and public defenders of Israel's biblical heritage and legal rights to all the land west of the Jordan River). Education is essential to leadership, but we find in all fields that education has been corrupted by those in positions of authority. This betrayal of trust is at the core of many crises in the modern West and its taproot, Israel. In a follow-up email this week, Macy wrote his readers that by refusing an informative discussion, Rieger and Hoenlein "have once again demonstrated that they are unfit for their positions of Jewish leadership." The same could be said for AIPAC, which serves our diplomatic echelons by "koshering" all candidates for president, even one with ties to Hamas and Fatah. Among the points obscured from Americans and from Jewish communities around the world is the fact that the Road Map phase of the peace process, an Orwellian misnomer, demands the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the historic heartland of the Jewish people and their holiest sites, even from the Temple Mount where Jews are forbidden to pray. True Jewish leadership would alert American and world Jewry and their friends to these brutal facts; but those in office do not truly lead. The same is true in Israel, which has not had genuine Jewish leadership in the 60 years since the state was re-born. If it had, the military victories of 1948, 1967, 1973 and 1982 would have been secured, not thrown away; we would live in a different and better world. Just as Americans watch the jobs, education, borders and health system disintegrate while Congress fiddles and candidates emit sound bites, the failure of American Jewish leadership and the erosion of the status of Israel in Washington was clear at the State of the Union address when ALL members of Congress applauded plans to carve a state for a "non-people" called "Palestinians" from the center of Israel. Talk of surrendering the Golan Heights, site of much Jewish history and of one of the six "cities of refuge," elicits nothing from the ostensible leaders of American and world Jewry. Throughout the West, as in Israel, failures of leadership signal civilizational collapse. Jewish "leaders" say nothing while Israel, pressed relentlessly by the "Quartet," delivers fuel, food and water to those showering her with rockets. Jews are discriminated against fiercely by Israeli courts; as WND's Aaron Klein has detailed, Jewish-owned land is given to Arabs who build while Jews are expelled. But American leaders are silent, and people go about their lives ignorant of the catastrophe hovering over Israel, Jews and the West. All Americans need to hear the facts about these matters and to see how official Jewish leadership relates to the land and people of Israel. The burial of history threatens us all and is part of the godless new world emerging from many parts of our culture. True Jewish leaders would declare unequivocally that a "Palestinian" state carved from the heart of Judea and Samaria would be a terrible blow to regional and world peace and a lethal offense against truth and memory. Dr. Eldad, head of the new HaTikva ("the hope") Party and whose father was a distinguished professor who worked for Jewish independence, notes that a "Palestinian" state will lead to the destruction of Israel. The range of opinion in the American Jewish community is not being heard in the media. The American people do not favor a two-state solution and if better informed would oppose it even more strongly. Nor do they believe that true peace will result from arming jihadists termed "moderates." These matters need a public airing. If the emperor is naked, let us dress him with an honest and honorable policy that sustains our friends and disarms our enemies. Eugene Narrett received his Ph.D. from Columbia University in NYC. He is the author of four books on Israel and geopolitics and has taught and created curricula in the Humanities since 1978. This appeared today in World Net Daily
|
|
PLAYING INTO THE ANTI-SEMITES' HANDS
Posted by Michael Freund, June 18, 2008. |
|
Each year, the organized Jewish community in the United States spends tens of millions of dollars monitoring and tracking anti-Semitism, thanks in no small measure to a duplication of efforts among various Jewish organizations. The result is that money that could be spent to strengthen Jewish life and Jewish education is instead frittered away needlessly. And ironically enough, as I argue in the column below from the Jerusalem Post, this plays right into the hands of the anti-Semites themselves. Comments and feedback may be sent to letters@jpost.com or to me directly. thanks,
|
|
What a colossal waste of Jewish resources. Every year, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent monitoring and examining, exploring and investigating the extent of global anti-Semitism. Reports are compiled, press conferences are held, and trends are carefully studied and assessed, all as part of a monumental effort to track the spread of that age-old virus known as Jew-hatred. On the governmental level, the US State Department maintains an Office to Monitor and Combat anti-Semitism, while Israel runs its own Coordination Forum for Countering Anti-Semitism. Universities from Yale to Hebrew U have created centers to study the phenomenon, and then, of course, there is the alphabet-soup list of American Jewish groups, such as the ADL and AJC, all of whom make a fine living by sounding the alarm over anti-Jewish bigotry. And yet, despite it all, confusion still reigns regarding the very nature of the beast. Who hates us so much? And why? You'd think that after pouring so much time and money into the issue, we'd have a better grasp of the subject. Now consider the following. The Anti-Defamation League, based in New York, which bills itself as "the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency," spent over $76 million in 2006. That same year, the American Jewish Committee laid out more than $48 million, while the American Jewish Congress shelled out another $6 million. All told, these three self-styled US Jewish defense agencies, which are devoted to combating anti-Semitic hatred, spent over $130 million in just one calendar year. Now, according to the ADL's own figures, the total number of anti-Semitic incidents reported in the US that year was 1,554. That comes out, on average, to a whopping $83,655 per incident that these organizations are costing the Jewish people. Is that really justified?
NOW, DON'T get me wrong. I'm all in favor of countering anti-Semitism and standing up to our foes. It is essential to educate the public, spotlight media bias and denounce those who hate us with all our might. And yes, the three groups in question all do engage in a variety of activities beyond just combating anti-Semitism. But at a time when budgets are tight and Jewish needs are growing at home and abroad, do we really need several overlapping Jewish organizations doing pretty much the same thing? Frankly, this is profligacy at its worst. And it comes with a hidden, yet painful, cost to the Jewish people and their future. Indeed, just think about what all that money could achieve if it were put to better use, such as funding scholarships at Jewish day schools, subsidizing trips to Israel for Jewish youth or underwriting the costs of Jewish books. If even half of the $130 million spent by these groups each year were to go towards strengthening Jewish education, it could have a far more profound impact on Jewish life than the issuance of additional reports on anti-Semitic outbreaks.
TAKE, FOR example, the mounting tuition crisis facing many American Jewish parents. Two months ago, the New York Jewish Week reported that tuition at Ramaz, a leading Manhattan yeshiva day school, will top $30,000 for 12th grade this year. While other Jewish schools may be somewhat less costly, amounts such as these are proving increasingly prohibitive for many parents, and will ultimately deter at least some of them from giving their child a proper Jewish education. Imagine if the organized Jewish community instead decided to divert that same $130 million each year towards scholarship funds. It could literally change the lives of thousands of young Jews and keep more of them Jewish. But that, unfortunately, isn't happening. And as economists like to point out, every decision contains within it an "opportunity cost", such that money spent on "combating anti-Semitism" is therefore no longer available to educate Jewish children. Consequently, at a time of declining Jewish demography, rising intermarriage and growing assimilation, the US Jewish community's spending priorities are strikingly out of touch. They reflect the realities of America back in the 1950s rather than today. And so the wasteful expenditure of funds on outmoded and increasingly irrelevant Jewish organizations in effect only serves to further undermine the Jewish future by draining away scarce funds. Ironically enough, that is precisely what the anti-Semites themselves want to see happen.
SO I suggest it is time for US Jewry to rethink its priorities, and reorient its expenditures. Instead of worrying so much about the haters, let's start concerning ourselves more with those whom they hate. And let's start spending more of communal funds to ensure that Jewish youth continue putting on yarmulkes, rather than worrying so much about the anti-Semites who occasionally try to knock them off. Fighting Jew-hatred is important, and needs to remain a priority. But when it comes to investing in the Jewish future, and ensuring our survival as Jews, everything else simply pales in comparison. Michael Freund is the head of Shavei Israel and a columnist for the Jerusalem Post. This appeared in the Jerusalem Post
|
|
FOREIGN JIHADIS NOW HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Posted by The Patriot Post, June 18, 2008. |
|
THE FOUNDATION: JUDICIARY "The Constitution... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the
judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
EDITORIAL EXEGESIS "All hail the imperial court. In a bitterly divided 5-4 decision,
the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in Boumediene v. Bush that alien
enemy prisoners, waging a jihad against the American people and
captured by our military in a war authorized by Congress, have a
right –– under our Constitution –– to petition our courts for their release.
So doing, the Court invalidated laws it had only recently implored
Congress to enact, laws that provided these prisoners with generous
protections never previously extended to enemy operatives in American
history. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for Justices John Paul
Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer,
dictates that Americans must regard enemies as if they were mere
criminal defendants, entitled to an exacting legal process –– access to
discovery, witnesses, counsel, etc. –– that will, as a practical matter,
make it impossible to detain them without shutting down interrogations
prematurely and informing the enemy of our national-defense secrets.
There can be no justification for this stunning conclusion... The
runaway justices say that foreign al-Qaeda killers detained in Cuba
can march right into the federal district courts and demand what,
suddenly, are their constitutional rights. In those courts,
judges –– without guidance and emboldened by the high court's usurpation
of war powers –– will be encouraged to make it up as they go along: More
access to classified information? Subpoenas commanding the testimony
(and cross-examination) of our soldiers regarding the circumstances of
capture? Miranda warnings? Prompt access to counsel, which is certain
to halt any questioning –– and thus any revelation of lifesaving
intelligence –– before it can even start? Full-blown trials in the
criminal-justice system with the same presumptions of innocence,
privacy, and other privileges vested in American citizens? And who
will adjudicate the resulting mess? Our imperial court, of course."
UPRIGHT "Now that the Supreme Court has seen fit to affirm a variety of
rights of terror suspects held at Guantanamo, a new book is out
exposing the harsh realities of Gitmo –– the diet on which detainees have
gained weight –– the soccer fields and basketball courts –– the letters home
about mild weather and beautiful sunsets –– and the detainees who don't
want to leave." –– James Robbins Break "Once upon another time, namely
Franklin Roosevelt's, most of a group of German saboteurs that had
infiltrated this country were caught, tried by a military tribunal
that was convened by executive order for that purpose, promptly
convicted and then executed –– all within seven weeks. Can anyone imagine
that kind of swift and effective justice from this court?"
DEZINFORMATSIA Sympathy for the devil: "Next, we turn to the Supreme Court, which...
handed the Bush administration a stinging defeat. The justices ruled 5
to 4 that foreign terror suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay prison do
have a constitutional right to challenge their detention in court.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the president
and the Congress can't switch the Constitution on and off at will."
–– ABC's Charles Gibson on the court's spin on the Constitution Break
"The ruling essentially tells the Bush administration no more halfway
justice at Guantanamo, that the detainees there, according to Justice
Anthony Kennedy, 'have the constitutional privilege of habeas
corpus.' That simple statement gives the 270 detainees the right to
challenge their detentions, not at a military tribunal, but in front
of a U.S. judge. ... Lawyers for the detainees called it a victory for
America's reputation around the world."
Contact The Patriot Post by email at patriot-ED13688348@m1.PatriotPost.US
|
|
CHIEF OF STAFF: GAZA CALM WILL BE FRAGILE AND SHORT
Posted by Gil Ronen, June 18, 2008. |
|
IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi told the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Tuesday that in his estimate, the calm in Gaza will be "fragile and short." "We have to make the most of the calm but prepare for an incursion. We are on a collision course." He said that the IDF's cumulative attacks on Hamas made the calm more likely than it would have been otherwise. The Head of the Research Department for Military Intelligence, Brig.-Gen. Yossi Baidatz, told the committee that Hamas does not see itself as responsible for making sure the other terror organizations respect the calm. "The ones responsible for calming the other groups are the Egyptians," he said. He also estimated that Hamas will try to use the period of calm to dig tunnels into Israel, and will continue to smuggle weaponry into Gaza Calm to begin on Thursday A senior Egyptian source announced Tuesday afternoon that a lull in the hostilities between Israel and Hamas would begin on Thursday morning. Egypt's government news agency quoted a senior Egyptian political source, who claimed that both sides had agreed to implement the first stage in Cairo's plan for a ceasefire, which would include an end to mutual attacks. Hamas, too, was quick, on Tuesday evening, to announce the upcoming ceasefire. arch-terrorist Mahmoud A-Zahar called a news conference and said that the calm would begin Thursday at 6:00 a.m. He added that there was "no connection" between the calm and a deal for the release of Cpl. Gilad Shalit. He did say, however, that if Israel respects the calm, this would "advance" the release of the captive soldier. Earlier on Tuesday, the IAF successfully targeted the gunmen involved in the 2006 kidnapping of Cpl. Shalit. A-Zahar also said that "the calm is a victory for the resistance organizations who took up arms, and its meaning is that the [Israeli] siege on Gaza has failed." Barak: too soon to announce calm Israel, however, has not come out with statements similar to those by Egypt and Hamas, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak said it was too early to make such proclamations. Barak added however that the two sides were "examining the possibility" of announcing a calm. Speaking at the "Sheatufim" philanthropic conference in Beit Yehoshua on Tuesday, Barak said that "the IDF is prepared for any development, but it is important to maximize the chance for a truce in order to promote calm among the Gaza Belt communities, in addition to negotiating the release of Gilad Shalit." "The test will be in the implementation," he explained. Barak said. "It is hard to estimate how long [a calm] would last," he added. Gilad in Cairo Senior Defense Ministry official Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amos Gilad will be holding talks in Egypt Tuesday evening with the head of Egyptian intelligence, Gen. Omar Suleiman, regarding the plan for a 'calm' in Gaza. Egypt's intelligence chiefs met with a Hamas delegation from Gaza in the last few days, and the delegation is still in Cairo. According to Haaretz, Egyptian officials may conduct a series of consultations with both sides, according to a model similar to that used by Turkey in mediation between Syria and Israel. Vice Prime Minister Chaim Ramon reiterated his opposition to a calm with Hamas in a speech at a memorial ceremony for terror victim Nir Regev Tuesday. "It's another victory for radical Islam," he said. "It [Radical Islam] won in Lebanon and now in Gaza. So why be moderate? After all, why is Hamas seeking an agreement? Because this will be their chance to represent Gaza as a Hamastan state." Ramon: calm is Hamas victory Ramon warned, "there will be an [IDF] incursion in the end,but it will take a much higher toll in lives. The reason Hamas wants the calm is that it can no longer stand the siege and the actions we are taking against it." Nachi Eyal, the head of the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel, said in response that Ramon is "the father of the Disengagement doctrine and the evacuation of Gaza, and instead of handing out advice he should resign and go home." Ramon "is the last one who can give Israel advice," he added. Gil Ronen is a writer for Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews). |
|
THE ALL-POWERFUL AIPAC
Posted by Avodah, June 18, 2008. |
|
This comes from the Sultan Knish website:
|
|
Do you know how powerful AIPAC is? It's so powerful that the Bush Administration is currently telling Jews in Israel that they can't live in parts of Jerusalem and Samaria, because they really belong to the Marxist Fatah terrorist group that the US has lavished billions on and whose leader, President Bush has praised effusively, despite Fatah's role in the murder of both Israelis and Americans. No other country in the world gets this treatment from America. Condoleeza Rice hasn't traveled to Turkey 22 times to tell it to get out of Cyprus. In 2003 Turkey received a 1 billion dollar economic assistance package. In response Turkey blocked the US entry into Iraq crippling the war effort and is doing its part to destabilize Iraq with occasional invasions and bombings. That's because Turkey was holding out for 32 billion. Washington had been prepared to go only as high as 26 billion. In 1992-93, the US turned over over 1500 tanks and over 50 fighter planes to Turkey, yet without being attached to any US veto over how Turkey fought terrorism... as is always the case when it comes to Israel. Clearly we can see how powerful AIPAC is. When Bush arrived for the AIPAC dinner, his speech told AIPAC deletes Israel would have to make sacrifices and concessions. When was the last time a President came to a major lobbying group and told them they have to make sacrifices? Yes folks, that's how powerful AIPAC is. Today under the All-mighty AIPAC, which as all good disciples of Walt and Mearsheimer know controls American foreign policy, the US is pressuring Israel to divide its own capitol. Clearly AIPAC's power has no limit. Yes the US gives Israel billions in foreign aid. The US also gives Egypt, Jordan and a raft of Muslim countries billions in foreign aid. Israel got 2.1 billion in military aid in 2003. Egypt got 1.3 billion in military aid. Israel is pro-American. The majority of Egypt's population thinks America is the Great Satan. Israel has provided the US with classified Soviet equipment, intelligence, reliable points of operation and an unshakable alliance. Egypt has provided the US with another third world Muslim dictatorship to sink money into, albeit one that doesn't even have any oil. Egypt began receiving foreign aid in exchange for ending its ties to the USSR. Today Egypt gets foreign aid in exchange for not allying with America's enemies, despite the fact that it gives nothing back. Do you want to know how really powerful AIPAC is? The US has pumped billions into the Palestinian Authority, a hive of terrorism, corruption and greed. In 2007 alone the US kicked in over half a billion to the Fatah run PA. 150 million of it came in cash. The PA received "the highest per capita aid transfer in the history of foreign aid anywhere," according to former World Bank country director for Gaza and the West Bank, Nigel Roberts. Do you know where a good deal of that money keeps going? Look at the dead Israelis. That's your answer. That's how powerful AIPAC is. That's how in control AIPAC is. When he was running for office Bill Clinton promised Jewish voters that he would move the embassy to Jerusalem, as is the normal case in every country. He lied. Then Bush promised the same thing. He lied too. On and on, Clinton and Bush have prevented the embassy from being moved. Both Clinton and Bush created "peace plans" that would split up Jerusalem. That's how powerful AIPAC is. The same folks who rant on about AIPAC talk about US foreign aid to Israel. They don't talk about the price of that military aid. The US holds veto power over Israeli military action, even in self-defense. In 1967 the US didn't have that power and when Egypt, Jordan and Syria gathered to make war on Israel. The Johnson administration fumed over the Samu Incident and took Jordan's side. But Israel was free to strike first and disable the armies of 9 Arab nations that had been gathered to destroy it. In 1973 US foreign aid was high and the US had veto power. This time Israel was not allowed to strike first. This time the enemy struck first on Yom Kippur and Israel was nearly cut in half and overrun. Israeli soldiers fought desperate pitched battles, outmanned and outgunned, including some of the bloodiest on the Golan Heights where handfuls of brave soldiers and officers put up a last ditch resistance against Assad's Republican Guard, kissing cousins of Saddam's Baathist regime in desperate battles that made names like Zvika Greengold and Shmuel Askarov into legends. By the time the Nixon administration realized it had gone too far and began sending aid, there would have been no Israel if not for those brave men who stood and fought the enemy. And when Israel began to turn the tide, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger flew off to negotiate a cease fire while rejecting Israel's request to first settle the status of POW's, something that would have saved Israeli soldiers in captivity from brutal torture and mutilation. And yes AIPAC was around then too. Since then the US has repeatedly pushed plans that would have Israel turn over the Golan Heights high ground that those men fought and died for to Syria. Yes, AIPAC is all powerful indeed. The US pours billions into foreign aid for Israel's enemies. The US pays the salaries of Fatah's milita thugs who shell Israeli towns and carry out drive by shooting attacks on Israeli families driving home at night. Behold the might of AIPAC. US Congressmen blame Israel for the Gulf War, fought to liberate Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The war that left Israel helpless in the face of Saddam's attacks, warned by the Bush Administration that any Israeli planes that tried to take out Saddam's missiles, would themselves be fired on by Coalition warplanes. Because nothing could be allowed to interfere with the Arab support for the war. Behold the might of AIPAC. Today the power of AIPAC is legendary, refered to as the Israeli lobby, the Zionist lobby when its opponents are trying to be disingenious, the Jewish lobby when they aren't. It's been described as more powerful than the NRA, yet the NRA has been triumphant while Israel is being progressively carved up. There are a hundred lobbies, particularly industry lobbies, from the telecommunications industry, agribusiness, oil, pharmacheutical, that routinely get everything they want along with huge grants. Americans pay more for their medications, are subject to more corporate abuses and have less recourse than ever before. From Eminent Domain used to seize homes for private business interests to the Orphan Works Act which will make casual corporate appropriation of art and photos a fact of life to Mandatory Arbitration which denies the most basic individual right to legal recourse, corporate lobbies have never had it so good. And their success shows how laughable the idea of the all-powerful AIPAC really is. compared to the real power they wield and the results they have to show for it AIPAC isn't a tiger, it's a kitten. Beyond the usual appropriations of foreign aid, much of which are used to fund defense contractors in the same Congressional districts that approve them, what exactly does AIPAC have to show for it all? The answer is damned little. Today the US is pushing the knife down across Israel. The Bush Administration has ignored its own commitments to Israel which justified Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. Today Gaza is shelling Israel from the old Jewish towns and the burned out rubble of destroyed synagogues and Condoleeza Rice is making yet another trip to pressure Israel into turning the West Bank and half of Jerusalem to another bunch of terrorists and murderers. Yes AIPAC is all powerful indeed. AIPAC's power comes not from its effectiveness, but the myth of its effectiveness, a myth rooted more in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, than in any tangible results. The myth of the All-Powerful Jew who is at once weak was the same bigoted propogandist's cartoon of the hooknosed Jew and his all powerful influence that animated both German Nazism and Soviet Communism. When WW1 was fought the anti-war movement claimed that the Jews were behind it. The anti-war movement on the far right and left has dusted off those claims again, as they commonly do, except this time they have a name that's shorter and punchier than the Elders of Zion. AIPAC. It even comes with its own acronym. The same bunch of liars, loons, nuts, idaaaaaaaaaaaaaasiots and crazed bigots who crawl with Jewish obsessions the way a stray dog crawls with lice, develop the same material that is then upsold and mainstreamed for the Washington Post, the Atlantic, the New Yorker and Salon, by way of the Huffington Post and DailyKos. Their myth of the All-Powerful AIPAC is the myth of the All-Powerful Jew, a myth that liars and bigots, radical socialists and far right nationalists have always needed to explain their own miserable inadequacies and failures and to give the mob something to bay about. The military industrial complex is a vague diffuse thing. But the Jew is a very real image. Shout that the Military Industrial Complex controls America and you need a book to understand it. Shout that the Jews control America and you can leaf through the book and get right to the hating. Yet if Israel controls America, the reasonable person must ask why Israel's territory keeps shrinking, why the US holds Israel to standards that no other country is held to, why every other country is free to fight terrorism, while Israel's terrorists are funded, armed and trained by the US. If the Israel lobby was only a fraction as powerful as its enemies say it is, families in Israeli towns wouldn't be shelled by terrorists whose salaries are paid by Washington D.C. If AIPAC was the all-devouring force its enemies describe it as, Israel would be able to build houses in its own capitol without having to ask Condoleeza Rice for permission. At the very least the US embassy might actually be in Israel's capitol, instead of Rice flying to Israel with another plan to carve up that same capitol for those same people shelling Israeli towns on the US dollar. There is no All-Powerful AIPAC. AIPAC is nothing but a shortcut, a way for politicians to cheaply impress Jewish voters and solicit Jewish donations and votes. For its membership AIPAC is a lazy way to show concern. For its officers AIPAC is a means of meeting and greeting politicians while holding rubber chicken dinners. AIPAC is not helpless, but neither is it any more than a crossroads where politicians promise what they don't intend to deliver and give eloquent speeches they take back after a week in office... serving the same function as so many other lobbies do. For antisemites, the acknowledged and the unacknowledged, AIPAC is something far more potent –– the very essence of the Jewish myth, the tentacled Jewish octopus reaching its way into every office and organ of government. For them AIPAC is the Jewish Bigfoot come to life and rampaging across Washington D.C., strangling Congressmen, compelling obedience and forcing George Bush to phone Sharon every time he needs instructions. Old bigotries don't go away and the power of antisemitic myths is not banished by electric lights and cable modems. It's simply distilled, cooked, boiled in the lunatic mind and poured out to fit the mold of a new generation. Behold the All-Powerful AIPAC. But let us step away from that myth for a moment and return to Zvika Greengold, born in a Kibbutz named after the Ghetto Fighters who fought their own last stand against the Nazis, fighting alone in a single damaged tank against brigades of Syrian armor. That night, the information officer finally gets through to command HQ and asks for instructions for the following day. Silence. "What?" he hears... "You're still alive?" Taken aback, but recalling the last wishes of his late brigade commander, he replies slowly, "Yes, we're still alive" and replaces the receiver. That is the real Israel and that is the real Jew who shell-shocked, battered and beaten has fought his way through thousands of years of recorded history to be here today when the Pharaohs and Emperors, Tyrants, Caliphs, Kings and conquerers who have trampled us have come and gone. The world calls on the phone, unable to believe that this "fossil of history" is still alive, despite everything. "Yes, we're still alive," the Jew says and replaces the receiver, turning to face whatever may come in the long night. Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com |
|
GAZA CHRISTIANS PERSECUTED; FUTILITY OF INTL ORGANIZATIONS/FATUITY OF LEADING DEMOCRATS; SYRIA RAID JUSTIFIED
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 18, 2008. |
|
EASING MILITARY CONTROL OVER P.A. "In accordance with political echelon directives, the IDF has formulated an extensive plan to ease restrictions for" the P.A. Arabs. The changes include a 40% increase in P.A. Arabs allowed to work in Israel, 5,000 more allowed to stay overnight, many checkpoints removed and others made more convenient for Arabs, more industrial zones to build, a hospital in northern Samaria, legalize thousands of" illegal P.A. Arab houses (while it denies final approval to Jews' houses), train more P.A. police and open more police stations (IMRA, 6/3). ISRAEL'S PLAN TO RE-FILL SIDEROT AREA The government plans to spend a hundred million dollars improving the infrastructure and on family subsidies for people to move into Siderot and the surrounding area (IMRA, 6/3). The newcomers would take the place of thousands who fled the unremitting bombardment from Gaza. It would be cheaper and saner to invade Gaza and remove the terrorists. Then people would return to Siderot on their own. One can just see the ads: "Move to Siderot for subsidy and free fireworks from Gaza. The government will buy exploded rockets as scrap metal." CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION IN GAZA SPEEDS UP Persecution preceded the Hamas regime but has accelerated under it. "The targets have included churches, Christian and United Nations schools, the American International School, libraries and Internet cafes." On May 31, "...gunmen attacked the guards at the Al Manara school, stole a vehicle belonging to the Baptist Holy Book Society which operates the school and threatened the society's director." Hamas doesn't punish the perpetrators and doesn't stop the attacks. Al-Qaeda admits it intends to drive the remaining Christians out (Arutz-7, 6/3). ISRAELI JUSTICE SYSTEM Police withhold wiretap evidence that exculpates suspects (Arutz-7, 6/3). EGYPTIAN MAPS OF ISRAEL? Egyptian maps do not refer to Israel. They show a single entity, "Palestine." (Arutz-7, 6/3). Egypt was supposed to recognize Israel and to have made peace with it. FUTILITY OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS/FATUITY OF LEADING DEMOCRATS Syria gave out word that it would not let the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) inspect nuclear sites still suspected of being active, only the bombed one that Syria cleaned up and paved over. Not much use, the IAEA! Actually, it is counter-productive, between its loopholes and biases. After hearing about Syria's nuclear development, several other Mideastern countries embarked upon their own nuclear development. One of them is Jordan. It claims that its development will be peaceful. Do you believe that? They always say it is peaceful. However, as they develop expertise and set up dual-possibility usage, they can come very close to having a bomb. Then it is just a short sprint to the nuclear bomb club. Iran already is sprinting, even while it both threatens to destroy other countries and claims its development is civilian. If civilian, it wouldn't have perfected certain processes and capabilities exclusively military. The UNO Human Rights Council is hearing demands to expel a Jewish observer organization whose delegate criticized the Council's deficiencies and Hamas' genocidal charter. His alleged sin is veering off the agenda, the actual sin is criticizing the Council. The agenda is Israel. Israel is always the agenda. The mass-murderers and bigots who control the Council specialize in Israel, which does not violate the rights of Muslims. Israel does violate the rights of Jews, but the rest of the world doesn't care and most Jews don't know about it. A friend called up excitedly to alert me that candidate Obama was about to address AIPAC. I asked her what is he lying about, this time? Turns out that, just for them, he said Jerusalem should be Israel's undivided capital, and got a standing ovation. Too convenient for suddenly eliciting Jewish support. And the audience fell for it! The newspaper showed a picture of Sec. Rice, too, receiving a standing ovation at AIPAC. She is Israel's foremost foreign adversary (Peres and Olmert being its foremost domestic adversaries). Like the other US officials, she doesn't admit to being anti-Zionist. She must have told the delegates that she favors Israeli security, and they don't seem aware that she spends half her time demanding that Israel cease most of its security efforts and join the US in supporting certain anti-Israel terrorists. Upon receiving a standing ovation from that crowd, she must feel particular contempt for us Jews. We don't know who our enemies are. At AIPAC, PM Olmert said he might make a peace with Syria that would preserve Israeli security and isolate Iran. Fat chance of weaning Syria from Iran, which props up Syria's economy and may be helping it to regain control over Lebanon! Olmert's offer of the entire Golan, which has natural barriers to Syrian invasion, would make Israel most insecure. How could Syrian then resist the temptation to invade? Syria is not benign. An indicator of Syria's attitude is that after having been offered the whole Golan, Syria now is demanding Lake Kinneret (30-40% of Israel's water supply) and some Israeli cities. There's no end to Arab demands! TERRORISM SUFFERING SOME DEFEATS The number of terrorist attacks has fallen drastically since 2004. A major reason is Muslim disillusionment with the terrorists for attacking them. Another reason is, "After 9/11, the president mobilized all forms of American power against bin Laden and his global jihadist movement. The constant pressure –– cutting off the movement's funding, bringing down the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, hunting down jihadist affiliates in the Philippines and the Horn of Africa, spying on the terrorists' global communications –– put the enemy on the defensive for the first time." "Then the President denied the jihadists an ally by removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Bin Laden declared Iraq the 'central front' of his war against the West, and the Sunni insurgency helped Al Qaeda in Iraq gain a foothold there. Bush changed strategy last year, sending reinforcements to Iraq and ordering General Petraeus to secure the country's population. The results have been dramatic. By the time the first reinforcements arrived in Iraq, the Anbaris were already turning against al Qaeda. The Americans helped to almost completely eliminate the group in Anbar. Al Qaeda in Iraq is on the run." Terrorism, however, is gaining in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza (and Abbas' P.A. and in Europe). The Left analyzed the situation all wrong. It contended that Iraq was lost, that Iraq would cause a buildup in al-Qaeda, that military power would do us no good, that a war on terrorism is futile. Pres. Bush has demonstrated that we can win the war on terrorism. The Left still wants to flee from Iraq. They would turn looming victory into defeat (Prof. Steven Plaut, 6/4 from Matthew Continetti). One of those defeatists is running for President. Someone observed that the success of the surge in Iraq shows that we entered the war with too few troops. We needed the larger number from the outset. SYRIA STILL ARMING HIZBULLAH Syria is providing Hizbullah with additional weapons, such as missiles and rockets, while negotiating peace with Israel (IMRA, 6/4). Smell a rat? Syria could even make peace, but let Hizbullah carry on a war. U.S. DOESN'T KNOW WHAT IT ARRANGED? A reporter asked the State Dept., "On the settlements issue, do you draw a distinction between expansion of existing settlements and the creation of new ones?" "MS. PERINO: No, we –– well, I would have to go back and look at exactly what the road map language has. I don't think I have it with me here. But we know that even if it is a settlement that exists and there's expansion of that settlement, that that is part of the problem in terms of Palestinians feeling that that is not acting in good faith when it comes to their negotiations. Obviously the Israelis see it from a different point of view,..." (IMRA, 6/3.) Did the US draw up a confused document or does the US no longer state frankly what the Road Map means? Why should Israel be bound by Map infringement on its freedom, an infringement to which PM Sharon objected at the time? If the Map is clear on this, then the US should state what it means and not let the Arabs pretend, as they do with UNO Resolutions and International law that this clearly stated document means something it doesn't. EGYPTIAN DIPLOMACY AGAINST ISRAEL Egyptian diplomats are lobbying their European counterparts to disapprove of a plan for more trade with Israeli that could bring the Jewish states billions of dollars. Israel protested to Egypt. Egypt is said to be retaliating against Israeli complaints that it allows arms smuggling into Gaza. The complaints led to a US bill that would reduce some US aid to Egypt unless Egypt eliminated the smuggling (IMRA, 6/3). I don't believe that explanation. Egypt usually leads diplomatic efforts against Israel. Israel is slow to learn that Egypt has remained an enemy. It prefers to believe, contrary to the evidence, that Egypt has made peace with Israel. ISRAELI RAID ON SYRIA JUSTIFIED The head of the Intl. Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) criticized Israel for having bombed Syria's nuclear reactor instead of asking the IAEA to inspect it and to get Syria to demolish it. Now Syria is barring the IAEA from inspecting three other suspected sites. This indicates that Syria would have barred it from inspecting the reactor (IMRA, 6/3). Not likely that Syria would heed an IAEA request to demolish a nuclear reactor. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear regularly in 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 |
|
DIPLOMATS: THIS IS HOW EGYPT WILL WREAK DIPLOMATIC HAVOC
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 18, 2008. |
|
This was written by Ali Waked and it appeared today in Ynet News. Reuters contributed to this report |
|
Damaged interests in Africa and having Livni declared persona non grata –– hours after Egypt's foreign minister threatens to use diplomatic muscle against Israel, sources familiar with Israel-Egypt relations tell Ynet exactly what kind of an impact Jerusalem can expect Less than a day after Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit threatened to employ Cairo's diplomatic clout to strike at Israel –– sources familiar with Israeli-Egyptian relations reveal the plan of action to Ynet. Egypt wields considerable influence in numerous countries all around the world and has the capability of using that power to damage Israeli interests, said the diplomatic sources on Monday, particularly stressing Cairo's sway over the continent of Africa. "Egypt can strike at Israel on the diplomatic field and have Foreign Affairs Minister Tzipi Livni declared persona non grata in many nations, as well as deal a diplomatic blow to Israeli relations with those countries," one source said. The source estimated that unless the current level of tension abate, Egyptian embassies worldwide would be ordered to move to a far more aggressive brand of diplomacy against Minister Livni and Israel in general. "One more mistake on Livni's part –– as far as Egypt is concerned –– will be one mistake too many and may prove devastating for her and perhaps for the future of her career," said the source, who asked to remain anonymous. The boiling point Egyptian-Israeli ties have been particularly strained since Israel said this month it had sent a videotape to Washington that Israeli officials said showed Egyptian security men helping Hamas militants smuggle arms across the border to the Gaza Strip. Livni also said last week that Egypt had done a terrible job of trying to stop arms smuggling to Gaza via Egypt's Sinai peninsula, and said there could be regional implications. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak accused Israel of fabricating evidence to implicate Egyptian security men in arms smuggling and said Livni had crossed "red lines". Egypt also accused Israel last week of encouraging pro-Israeli groups in the United States to lobby members of the US Congress to the detriment of Egyptian interests. Cairo said Israel was trying to distract attention from Jewish settlement building. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
IT LOOKS LIKE A PEACE DEAL HAS BEEN CUT WITH SYRIA
Posted by Ted Belman, June 17, 2008. |
|
While media attention has been focused on the Palestinian track where no progress has been made and no real pressure applied, serious work has been going on with Syria. You will recall that the Iraq Study Group under Baker recommended in November '06, that the US should engage Syria and Iran about Iraq without preconditions. While Bash and Rice rejected the recommendations publicly, they went about following them. The Annapolis Conference held one year later was part of that new dialogue. Syria was induced to attend because, there was added to the agenda, under the title "Comprehensive Peace", the Syrian tract and the Lebanon tract. Syria left empty handed and began plotting moves to get satisfaction. In late January, Hezbollah started challenging the Siniora government in Lebanon. This culminated in a mini civil war followed by the Doha Compromise in the last week of May, which strengthened Hezbollah and installed General Sulieman as President. He is known as a Syrian ally. Much to my surprise, the US backed the agreement and Israel used that as an occasion to announce peace talks with Syria under the auspices of Turkey. Evidently informal talks had been going on for some time. The timing of the announcement may have had more to do with Doha than with Talanski. Just three weeks later Israel is conceding the Shebaa Farms. This can only signal a final deal with Syria is in the offing. On Sunday two French emissaries visited Damascus with the offer of Shebaa farms. The next day, Condi Rice departed from her stated mission of moving the Palestinian tract forward to go to Beirut to cement the deal. Finally the EU announced an upgrading of ties to Israel with a perfunctory nod to the peace process. The French are hoping to have both Syrian President Assad and PM Olmert attend their Conference of Mediterranean States on July 13 at which time the two would "meet". Finally, without interminable negations for the release of Goldwasser and Regev, as is the case with Shalit, we hear that the two are expected to be released within weeks. All these events are connected and suggest that a deal has been cut for he return of the Golan and final peace with Lebanon and Syria. It may be that the real reason for the "lull" with Hamas is to enable these events to play out. As I suggested in another article another reason for accepting the lull may be the belief that a future worse conflict can be avoided. Bush gave a telling interview in Paris a few days ago in which he said "When you go to the Middle East and you sit in my seat and listen, yes, there's concern about the Palestinian state. But the dialogue has shifted dramatically from 'solve the Palestinian state and you've solved the problems in the Middle East' to, now, 'solve the Iranian issue and you solve the problems in the Middle East'." And so it has. The US strategy is to first get Syria sorted away and then work on Iran with the full cooperation of the EU. If all this comes to pass as I have suggested, a peace deal will be forced on Israel, and the PA the terms of which may already have been agreed to between Israel and the US. Just today Condi Rice is interfering in negotiations between Israel and the PA by siding with the division of Jerusalem. So much for allowing the parties to negotiate final status issues. Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com |
|
STRING OF DISASTROUS DECISIONS SHOWS THAT GOVERNMENT IS OUR GREATEST THREAT
Posted by Martin Sherman, June 17, 2008. |
|
It is difficult to grasp. It is even difficult to accept. But it is no longer possible to deny the almost unthinkable truth. Today the People of Israel and the State of Israel are facing a "clear and present danger" that is far more immediate –– and arguably no less lethal –– than any of the perils brewing in Tehran: The government of Israel. There are doubtless those who would protest that such a harsh accusation is outrageously unreasonable. But they must confront the facts. They must not be allowed to ignore the undeniable: It was the government of Israel that threw caution to the wind and –– in spite of dire warning as to the consequences –– initiated the Oslo process which brought carnage to the streets of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa... It was the government of Israel that –– in spite of the dire warnings as to the consequences –– foisted the disengagement plan on a misinformed, misled public and brought death and destruction to the civilian population in the South It is the government of Israel that sits idly by while the forces of radical Islam in Gaza stockpile deadly ordnance, enhance the methods of their delivery, expand the ranks of their forces, and upgrade the level of their training –– with the same indifferent impotence as it did with regard to the forces of radical Islam in the north. And now, the government of Israel has, what can only be described as brazen impudence, to inform its citizens that it is planning to expose them to even more –– and equally easily foreseeable –– dangers by considering the transfer of the Golan to Syrian control. Indeed, if even the upbeat assessments of the Israeli representatives at the renewed peace talks are accurate, the notion of withdrawing from the Golan is still unacceptably rash and wildly irresponsible. For Assad's current sincerity (or lack thereof) is entirely irrelevant in appraising the proposed evacuation. What is vital is not whether he appears genuine in his intent to honor any agreement with Israel, but whether he will be able to do so over time in the future. As the Gaza experience shows, regime changes can no longer be dismissed as a mere figment of the right-wing's demented imagination, nor as nothing more than rejectionist scare tactics. They must be considered a tangible possibility and factored in the decision-making process by responsible government. There is an array of crucial questions that have to be given convincing answers before the possibility of relinquishing any element of Israeli control in the Golan is even countenanced:
The Israeli public must insist on convincing answers to all these questions before any negotiations on the Golan are even contemplated; it must demand they be provided before even considering disturbing the status quo on the most tranquil border the country has had for three and a half decades. In a democracy, the citizenry is ultimately responsible for its own fate –– and the citizens of this country have learnt, by bitter experience, that they can no longer unconditionally entrust their security to their government's judgment. It has been found too faulty too often. Contact Martin Sherman at ms6747@gmail.com. This article appeard in Ynet News
|
|
CONDI'S MIDDLE EAST SWANSONG
Posted by Editor, Front Page Magazine, June 17, 2008. |
|
This was written by P. David Hornik and it appeared appeared in Front
Page Magazine
|
|
On Friday the Israeli Interior Ministry announced plans to build 1300 homes in Ramat Shlomo, a Jerusalem neighborhood in a part of Jerusalem that was occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, here for yet another visit, didn't like it a bit. As she told reporters on Sunday, "It's important to have an atmosphere of trust and confidence. Unfortunately I do believe, and the United States believes, that the actions and the announcements taking place are having a negative effect on the atmosphere for negotiations." She also complained about slow progress in improving Palestinians' quality of life in the West Bank –– "I recognize that we haven't made the progress that we would like to in terms of movement and access and removal of barriers. Particularly I am concerned about the outposts, which are illegal, even under Israeli law, and so I would hope to see more movement." She put the onus on Israel, in other words. Only one report that I've seen –– and it's in the Israeli press –– has her also saying, "While the issue of settlement construction may hinder the peace process, we have to bring the attacks on Israeli citizens to a stop. There is a lot we have to discuss." Oh yes, that little detail. If Rice's scolding had any benefit at all, it's that it evoked a little backbone –– almost –– even from Ehud Olmert, no one's idea of Mr. Ramrod-Straight. He told Rice Sunday evening that "We are not confiscating additional Palestinian lands but building in Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem which are expected to remain in Israeli hands." Olmert, in other words, invented a nonexistent Israeli sin of "confiscating Palestinian lands" to make up for defending a fundamental Jewish value of living in Jerusalem. His spokesman Mark Regev was a bit more forthright, stating that "It is clear that the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem will remain part of Israel. It is not realistic that we freeze the lives of people in Jerusalem" –– the closest one can imagine to a little character being shown by the immediate Olmert circle. One wonders if, while she's here, Rice bothers reading the Israeli press. On Sunday she could have read in the Jerusalem Post –– a mainstream paper that favors a Palestinian, Muslim-Arab state in Judea and Samaria –– that As US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Defense Minister Ehud Barak in Jerusalem on Sunday, top Israeli defense officials and IDF officers slammed two American-backed initiatives to deploy additional Palestinian forces in the West Bank, saying they are allowing terrorism to flourish. A certain problem of U.S. blinders when it comes to the Palestinians? No sign that Rice has become cognizant of such a problem or that it has affected her view of the Palestinians at all. And having managed not to be in Israel since the first week of May, when she made another bold effort to get Israel to take down checkpoints, Rice presumably missed the May 19 story about the
The report goes on to recount several more such incidents –– and this is only one, albeit a major one, of the many checkpoints, roadblocks, and barriers in Judea and Samaria, which exist for one purpose and one purpose only: to protect Israeli citizens from being stabbed, blown up, poisoned, and the like. It's impossible to know what causes Rice to see the main problems in this corner in the world as Israeli building of homes in places she considers off limits to Jews, and a lack of "movement and access" for Palestinians requiring "removal of barriers." The best conjecture probably lies in her statement that "I know what it's like to hear that you can't use a certain road, or pass through a checkpoint because you are a Palestinian. I know what it is like to feel discriminated against and powerless," which she followed with a description of her childhood in Birmingham, Alabama. In other words, her seeing the Palestinians in the image of southern blacks under Jim Crow –– a perception so cockeyed that it alone should have disqualified her from holding such an office. (To begin with, nobody had to inspect southern blacks at checkpoints because they didn't carry knives and bombs, seek to murder anyone, or seek anything but the rights they were denied –– but it should be too obvious to need spelling out.) Reportedly there's not much concern in Israel about Rice's latest round of criticism, and focus on the central Jewish value of Jerusalem, because she's seen as part of a distinctly lame-duck administration whose days are numbered. She has, though –– with the blessing of her boss, President George W. Bush –– further eroded the legitimacy of Israel's security concerns and Jewish essence, and whoever is her successor, if so inclined, will find it all the easier to continue her destructive path. P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Tel Aviv. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/. He can be reached at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com. |
|
UNRWA AND THE "PALESTINIAN" "REFUGEES"
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 17, 2008. |
|
"According to UNRWA there are 4 million Palestinian refugees
today. They are the only refugees whose refugee status is transmitted
automatically to the next generations. Moreover, according to UNWRA,
whoever lived in Palestine for only 2 years before leaving it,
qualifies as a Palestinian refugee. UNRWA employs 22,000 people and
spends 400 million dollars a year".
Compare and Contrast
contrast with the tented refugee camps in Darfur
The essay below was written by Hugh Fitzgerald and it appeared May
29, 2008 on Jihad Watch
|
|
UNRWA is at this point a wholly-owned subsidiary of the PLO, or the "Palestinian" Authority, or of the Arab League, or of the two slightly-diverging branches of the PLO, the Fast Jihadists of Hamas and the Slow Jihadists of Fatah, who share the same ultimate goals but differ only on tactics and timing. Those goals are an end to a non-Muslim nation-state called Israel, with its Jews being forced to cry "give me dhimmitude or give me death." The personnel of UNRWA, save for a camouflaging handful at the top, are all Arabs –– all "Palestinian" Arabs, adept at promoting the Arab cause, and in misusing funds, and demanding still more, as those funds are used to promote that cause. The cause is not of Arab well-being, but of Arab rage, and Arab propaganda, against the scarcely-to-be-discerned-on-a-world-map tiny Infidel nation-state of Israel. No one ever dies, practically, who has ever been on the UNRWA rolls. And all kinds of local Arabs, who never lived in, and therefore never left, "Palestine" –– in Lebanon, in Jordan, in other places –– all saw the UNRWA gravy-train and signed right up as that shape-shifting thing, "refugees." UNRWA is corrupt and corrupting. It is a crock, a disgusting, if so far successful, effort to monopolize the attention and money of the U.N. and the soi-disant "international community" for the sake of the Jihad against Israel. Meanwhile, all the real refugees, the ones deserving of the most sympathy –– that is, not the children or grandchildren of this unique (and ever-expanding) group of local Arabs who are now so carefully called "Palestinians" –– are neither encouraged nor permitted to hand down forever the doubtful-in-the-first-place self-description of themselves as refugees. Hundreds of millions of much more worthy-of-attention refugees exist right now have existed during the past fifty years all over the world. None of them have received the same kind of monomaniacal attention that the "Palestinians" have. None have been the recipients of the endless billions of Western aid. None have been the cynosure of all those ngo'ed and quango'ed and international-community eyes. None have come to be regarded as their pet project by some dopes, along with, of course, the perennial antisemites who make up a small, but nonetheless very committed group. Jimmy Carter, for example, belongs to both groups, dopes and antisemites, though he would deny membership in at least the latter and assume that no one would think him, a "nuclear engineer," a member of the former. About 560,000 Arabs actually left Mandatory Palestine in the months before the Arabs attacked the nascent state of Israel, and then during that war. And, during that period and in the few years following, Jews in all the Arab countries were subject to intermittent pogroms. About a million Jews fled, with certainly far more than 560,000 of them coming to Israel. That is what is called an "exchange of populations," and it happened after World War I, with Greeks in Turkey and Muslims in Greece, and after World War II, during the Partition, with Muslims going to Pakistan (West and East) and Hindus going to India from the territories assigned to Pakistan. Those Arabs –– or some of them –– who did leave may well believe, at this point, that they really do constitute a separate "Palestinian people," but most of them know perfectly well that they are simply the local Arabs, sharing the same language, religion, culture, and all the other identifying characteristics of a people with Arabs of the same cult in Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and so on. And they know, some of them, that their own connection to the land that Israel now possesses is quite recent, for in the nineteenth century the Ottoman vilayats that went later into forming the Mandate for Palestine were reduced to ruin and desolation, and the biggest town, Jerusalem, had a mere 15,000 residents. When the Zionists arrived, this was a late-19th century equivalent of the oil boom in the Gulf, and Arabs swarmed in, before and during and after World War I, and continued to arrive. More of them arrived as illegal immigrants than did Jews, who were kept out, in many cases, by the unsympathetic British authorities. How many Arabs know this? How many, for that matter, Israelis know this? And, of course, how many in the "international community" know much, know anything, about the land ownership? 90% of the land was owned by the Ottoman state. It then devolved to the Mandatory Authority, and was held essentially in trust for the intended beneficiary of the Mandate for Palestine. There were other mandates for the Arabs, and besides, they already had vast swaths of territory under their control, as all of the Arabian peninsula, that never fell within the League of Nations' Mandate system. Those Arabs who were called, however inaccurately, the "Arab refugees," after the Six-Day War started to be called "the Palestinians," for obvious propagandistic effect. And those "refugee camps" are not, as the name suggests, places full of transitory tents. They are whole cities, even in "impoverished Gaza." There "the worst human rights crisis in the world," according to the well-known antisemite Jimmy Carter, is currently to be seen. And he knows this because the "Palestinians," including those who staff UNRWA, tell him so. Almost all of the Arab states have decided not to allow, uniquely among their "Arab brothers," the "Palestinians" to acquire citizenship or, in Lebanon, to hold jobs. They would, ideally, like those "Palestinians" to be as ostentatiously wretched as possible (even though plenty live very well, their UNRWA dole supplemented by all kinds of activities, not all of them criminal in nature). And while even some of the "Palestinians" have publicly (well, publicly to fellow Arabs) discussed how the Arab states urged the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine to flee, and therefore have a responsibility to help pay for them, no Arab states, though many are swimming in gold, have felt the slightest need to help those "Palestinians." Of course, the invention of that "Palestinian people" –– and the careless way in which Israelis, too, contribute to the propaganda of their enemies by appearing to accept that very notion –– did a great deal to harm Israel (and the rest of the West) by providing a "national-liberation" cover for what was, is, and always will be a classic Jihad against an Infidel nation-state. That Jihad will not end, nor will its supporters be assuaged, by a further reduction in the size of Israel. The Arabs sometimes have a habit of letting things slip. Zuheir Mohsen, the leader of the terrorist group As Saiqa, happened to give an interview to James Dorsey for the Dutch newspaper Trouw in March 1977, in which he said this: The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. Read the U.N. records, the records of what every Arab said, whether in a threatening or a cajoling tone, from 1948 or well before 1948, right up to the Six-Day War, and even for a short period beyond. It is only then that, out of the blue, comes this phrase "the Palestinian people." Before all that "Palestinian people" business, and before Israel came into the possession of the unallocated parts of the mandate, the "West Bank" and Gaza that Jordan and Egypt had seized in 1948-1949, and which Ben Gurion, unduly cautious, had not had the wit to seize back, there were far more people who had not been subject to a decades-long onslaught of Arab propaganda, and saw things more clearly. One such person was Elfan Rees, the Adviser on Refugees to the World Council of Churches on Refugees, who in 1957 wrote this in "The Refugee Problem Today and Tomorrow": I hold the view that, political issues aside, the Arab refugee problem is by far the easiest postwar refugee problem to solve by integration. By faith, by language, by race and by social organization, they are indistinguishable from their fellows of the host countries. There is room for them, and land for them, in Syria and in Iraq. There is a developing demand for the kind of manpower that they represent. More unusually still, there is the money to make this integration possible. The United Nations General Assembly, five years ago, voted a sum of 200 million dollars to provide 'homes and jobs' for the Arab refugees. That money remains unspent, not because these tragic people are strangers in a strange land, because they are not; not because there is no room for them to be established, because there is; but simply for political reasons. And that is where things stand now. These are the shock troops of the Jihad. They are no longer, if they ever were, a "tragic people." They have managed to turn themselves into people battening on a steady diet of hysteria and hate. Just look at every photograph of those car-swarms in Gaza, and those Hitlerian rallies, and those Der-Stuermer like photos and television shows that the "Palestinian" Arabs feed themselves. And as long as they are the spoiled children of the "refugee" world, as long as they hog the money and the limelight at the U.N. and in all of its constituent succursales and meetings (in Durban on "Racism" that turned into a kind of lynch-mob against Israel, in Cairo on "the family" that turned into a kind of lynch-mob against Israel, and so on), several hundred millions real refugees who are not political pawns, including a great many who are refugees because they are non-Muslims or non-Arab Muslims who have been fleeing the discrimination, persecution, and murder that Muslim Arabs have inflicted on them, will never get the attention they rightly deserve. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
AN EMPTY PACKAGE
Posted by Jonathan Spyer, June 17, 2008. |
|
At this past Sunday's cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert issued a public statement relating to the revived negotiations with Syria. The talks, the prime minister wished to assure us, were "serious" and would be conducted with "all due caution." All the ingredients familiar from peace processes past were present in Olmert's statement: the gravitas; the quiet sense that history is presenting us with a chance that must not be missed; the necessary discretion. However, in the manner now familiar from Olmert's tenure as prime minister, what we were presented with was the form of something, without its content. The revelation of negotiations with Syria last week came wrapped in the packaging of a diplomatic breakthrough. But it was nothing of the kind. The basic flaw relates not to Israeli domestic politics (though this may certainly be a factor). The reason why the current negotiations are almost certain to lead nowhere relates to the Syrian regime, and to its perception of its own interests. Syria should not be expected to break with Iran, for the following, central reason: The Iranians and their friends are winning. The Iran-led bloc can look around the region today, and feel a quiet sense of satisfaction. In all the various areas in which it is engaged in its long war with the West, Iran is gaining ground. Hamas, hosted by Syria and increasingly sponsored and trained by Iran, is holding on in Gaza. In doing so, the Hamas enclave there offers living proof of the muqawama (resistance) doctrine to which the Iranian-led bloc adheres. According to this doctrine, Iran and its clients can paralyze their enemies' decision-making ability, by making the cost of a preferred action too high. Israel knows that it ought to conduct a large-scale military operation in Gaza, in order to remove a regime that makes any peace process with the Palestinians an impossibility. But Israel doesn't act, because of the cost in lives that such an operation would entail. For Iran and its allies, this confirms a basic dictum: namely, that the shiny outward appearance of Western and Israeli strength conceals an inner weakness –– a lack of will. Iran and its clients have just scored an additional major victory in Lebanon. This, similarly, was gained by raw intimidation. The result was that in Doha last week, Hezbollah gained the key demand for which it has been campaigning over the previous 18 months: veto power in a new cabinet. This is of direct relevance to the Syrians. The Assad regime's interests have been aptly described as regime survival, returning to a position of influence in Lebanon and regaining the Golan Heights –– in that order. If Assad is currently interested in talking, it's because he genuinely would like to gain the third item on this list –– but not if it has implications for the other two items, which are more important. If quitting the Iran-led bloc is the price, it has direct relevance to both the stability of the regime and the Lebanese question. Hezbollah's new strength in Beirut will enable it to block and perhaps kill the tribunal investigating the murder of former prime minister Rafik Hariri. The tribunal has been one of the chief fears of the Assad regime since the assassination, in February 2005. More fundamentally, the rise of Hezbollah to the status of arbiter of power in Lebanon represents a very significant and clear gain for the Iran-led bloc in what has been one of the key arenas of its contest with the United States and its regional allies. Now, if Syria were to depart the Iran-led bloc, its place in all of this would evaporate: no more blocking of the Hariri tribunal, because there would be no more backing of Hezbollah. No return to Lebanon –– with its many economic opportunities –– because its new American friends will want to respect Lebanese sovereignty. No more influence over the Palestinians through the support of Hamas. Instead, the Assad regime would gain the basalt plateau of the Golan Heights –– the absence of which causes it no tangible discomfort –– and would in return become a vulnerable, minority-led dictatorship with no immediately obvious justification for its own existence. Why would the Syrians go for such a deal? Why would they leave the tutelage of a power that appears to be successfully defying the West over its nuclear program, and whose allies are managing to hold up well across the region? The answer is that they wouldn't, which is why the process is packaging without substance. Indeed, the very desire of Israel at the present time to break with American attempts to isolate Syria offers further proof that defiance works. Who is splitting whose alliance in this process, exactly? The bottom line is that peace will become a possibility in the region only when the pro-Iranian alliance is challenged and faced down. The attempt to decouple elements of it at the moment of its ascent is worse than useless. It conveys confusion, disunity and hesitancy at a time when the precise opposites of all of these are urgently needed. Dr. Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya Israel. This article appeared May 30, 2008 in Haaretz. |
|
GOOD EYE
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 17, 2008. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at fred343@gmail.com and see other of his graphics at http://fred343-fredfoolswithfotos.blogspot.com/ |
|
DISAPPEARING ACT
Posted by Barry Rubin, June 17, 2008. |
|
Exaggerations of Israel's demise are greatly exaggerated, to paraphrase Mark Twain. The question is: why is this suddenly happening now and –– even more important –– what is the impact of this fad going to be? The answer to the second question is very surprising so keep reading. The suddenness of this trend is illustrated by a telling anecdote. Two years ago, a young senator named Barrack Obama went on a trip to Israel with a group. In his reactions at the time, Obama said that Israel was so strong that it could easily make big concessions for peace. Now, in his recent interview with Atlantic magazine doomsayer-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, Obama said the exact opposite: Israel may disappear unless it makes big concessions for peace. First, one common thread is this: it is the latest trick for pretending that Israel should take big risks and make large concessions without getting much in return. Remember, there was the Oslo peace process which included the return of Fatah to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, its arming and supply with hundreds of millions of dollars plus Israel's offer to return the Golan Heights to Syria; the Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon, the pullout from the Gaza Strip. Given this experience, someone might conclude that concessions didn't work and that the Palestinians and Syria were not ready for peace. But such a conclusion is not permissible for those wedded to certain notions. Instead, they say: ignore all that because no matter how high the price you must make concessions and take risks in order to survive. Is this obvious nonsense? Yes. But obvious nonsense backed by the New York Times and McClain's in Canada, etc., drowns out the point that it is obvious nonsense. Second, of course, this expresses wishful thinking. A lot of people want Israel to disappear and thus feel good in asserting it is going to happen. The line in "pro-Palestinian" circles in the West seems to be that it doesn't matter that they lose all the confrontations, that their state-building effort has collapsed, and that the movement is more split than at any time in the last forty years. More important, they say, they now have control of the narrative. That and a few bucks will get you a cup of coffee. There are also some ideological reasons on the left, or what passes for it nowadays, that have invested heavily in the idea of Israel disappearing. One is that nationalism is obsolete. This is clearly absurd. It might be disappearing in Western Europe –– I mean European nationalism, not that of the new immigrants –– yet it is not a generalized global phenomenon. Quite the opposite.[i] But the people who think this way want nationalism to die in their own countries very badly and detest those who have pride in their heritage. Unfortunately, a disproportionate number of such intellectuals are Jews. To have Israel as daily disproof of their thesis is particularly humiliating to them. Who cares about the lives of millions of Israelis, for them it is like a teetotaler with an alcoholic cousin, or a racist with an African-American one. There is also something here involving their own definition of Jewishness. Many have nothing to do with their background except when using it to denounce Israel (or exalt past Jewish suffering or great revolutionary "heroes" to magnify themselves). They have never understood Zionism and, despite their self-proclaimed humanitarian credentials, could not care less about the fate of Israelis. Finally, there is the most interesting and new aspect of the Israel-is-dead movement, what it tells about the politics of the new-new left and the many people its ideas have influenced. It is also closely related to the let's-kill-Western-civilization movement, too. Here are its mantras: –– If anyone is your enemy you have failed and cannot win. This is because all conflicts are bad and nothing can be gained from war, Maybe that's another reason why Israel irritates them so much, just as ideologues in past centuries hated the Jews: it defies their ideological system. Briefly, let me suggest that on the list of countries and societies unlikely to survive, Israel is at the bottom, not top, of the ratings. Take any Middle Eastern state and it is full of dangerous, perhaps fatal, problems: inept governments, stalled development, massive population growth, bitter rivalries. You want to put your money on the future of Iran, Iraq, Syria, or Egypt? Israel is the state and society in the region most likely to survive over the next century. And what about Europe? Aside from the EU's project of dissolving away those countries, plummeting birth rates, loss of self-confidence, and rapidly rising immigrant populations do not make their futures look bright. Sweden, Norway, and Holland are all well on the way to the cliff edge. One after another, European countries will be passing Israel in their proportion of Muslim population. If we speak of urban areas, those with the greatest cultural and political influence, they are already doing so. Even if you attribute nothing but good and moderate intentions to the immigrants, if they don't integrate into the existing society then they are going to transform it to the extent that countries like Britain, France, or the Netherlands as we have always known them could be said to have disappeared. Remember also that Israel's enemies are overwhelmingly outside its borders; the opposite is true for the Middle Eastern and European states. And it's easier for a coherent society to survive an external threat than a disintegrating one to weather an internal challenge. The bookies better set Israel's odds as better than the rest or they are going to lose a lot of money. You might remember that I promised at the start of this article to surprise you with the conclusion. So here it is? What effect does all this talk about Israel disappearing have? Simple. It assures radical Islamists and radical Arab nationalists that they will win. Thus it encourages Arabs, and especially Palestinians, to keep fighting rather than to make peace and act moderately or constructively. It promotes terrorism, recruitment to terrorist groups, violence against moderates, and dictatorships. After all, if victory is in sight why stop fighting? If triumph is possible than it follows logically that anyone who wants to make peace is a traitor who should be killed. While the authors of the Israel-is-dead movement enjoy career benefits and feel good, thousands of Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians will die as a result of what they are writing. Israelis will die, too, but not enough to make their predictions come true. Any possibility for peace will be set back for many years; any hope of a better life for the Arabs themselves will be postponed until after the predicted apocalypse. As William Shakespeare had Mark Anthony say of other men who brought disaster to the cause they supposedly revered: "O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth/ [i] For a devastating analysis on this issue, see Jerry Z. Muller,
"Us and Them," in Foreign Affairs,
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 article is archived at
|
|
WHAT DO THE SAUDIS WANT?
Posted by Judith Klinghoffer, June 17, 2008. |
|
Slowly but surely it is beginning to dawn on a world mesmerized by the Democratic primary contest that an oil cartel has been picking our pocket with impunity by willfully failing to adjust its output to the additional needs of China and India. More specifically, Americans are beginning to wonder at the logic of continuing to keep Saudis safe. Hence, the US-Saudi oil axis faces a day of truth when president Bush will deliver diplomatically to his Saudi hosts the message NY senator Chuck Schumer delivered most undiplomatically: We are saying to the Saudis that, if you don't help us, why should we be helping you? And the Saudis are only NOT helping, they are hurting. The Saudis have let their output fall from 9.5m to 8.5m bpd over the last two years, camouflaging the move behind the accession of Ecuador and Angola to the group (which boosted nominal supply). OPEC failed to compensate for a 330,000 bpd drop in Nigerian production in April, allowing the market to tighten further. Saudi behavior baffles none other than Dr Fadhil Chalabi, a former OPEC secretary-general and now director of the Centre for Global Energy Studies: "They have about half a million barrels a day of good crude that they could put on the market. The puzzle is why they are not doing it. The soaring price is obviously telling us that the world needs more oil,"he said. "I can't understand why the Saudis would risk their strategic relationship with the US over this. Prior to President Bush's visit, the Saudis put out the word out that they would promise Bush to produce more though they would not help lower the price of oil regardless of Congressional threats to proceed with legislation penalizing the OPEC producers' cartel for "anti-competitiveness practices". But when Bush arrived they rebuffed him completely arguing that they had already increased production by 300,000 barrels per day earlier this month. Consequently, the Saudi oil minister insisted, all is well: "Supply and demand are in balance today... The fundamentals are sound." Ouch! but why? The short answer is: OPEC, including the Saudis, want to prevent oil from becoming obsolete. Alternatively, they want to make as much money as possible as long as possible and to be able to use their sovereign wealth funds to maintain the economic leverage they currently enjoy. And what will it take to change their mind? For what are they bargaining? That answer can be found in the Financial Times editorial entitled Time to convene a summit on oil: First, they want to see energy demands curtailed rather than supplies increased so that oil will continue to be able to meet that need. Second, they want oil consumers to continue to promote investment in oil and to promise NOT to invest in or subsidize seriously the development of alternatives to oil. Third, if alternative energy is to be developed, it should not substitute for oil, merely supplement it. Fourth, they want "to smooth the recycling of billions of dollars in oil revenues from producers back into consuming countries." In other words, end the growing scrutiny of sovereign wealth funds. Such demands make perfect sense from the oil producers' point of view as it will enable them to maintain their noose not only around the West's neck but also around Asia's neck. Indeed, I cannot imagine anything more dangerous than meeting these demands because it is bound to exacerbate the current world wide competition over energy supplies and even lead to another world war. Asians are particularly and justifiably annoyed with Western calls to limit their development. Nor should the dangers posed by sovereign wealth funds be downplayed, fashionable as it may be to do so. It is particularly useful to recollect the warnings issued by the editors of the FT as late as July 2007. Everything written then has only become more pressing now: The sheer volume of money placed at their disposal –– ING estimates that they manage $2,200bn, which could grow to $7,000bn to $9,000bn by 2015 –– adds a new dimension to the perennial sensitivities of cross-border buy-outs. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in calling for a European system to vet acquisitions by these funds, responds to genuine concerns over their opaque nature and potential to act through political motives. ... Yet the rapid growth of sovereign wealth funds poses risks beyond that of national security. There are worries over competence within some funds; concerns that their scale and ability to affect asset prices could lead to market volatility; and suspicion that they could help countries preserve a favourable currency regime. If decisions are swayed by political considerations, they could also undermine market discipline that matches rewards to sound corporate governance. Hence, the FT's editors call for an oil summit at which the oil producers' demands would be met is most disconcerting, as is their columnist Martin Wolf's idealistic recommendation that scarce oil be shared and shared alike: ... do try to reach global agreement on a pact on trade in oil based on the fundamental principle that producers will be allowed to sell their oil to the highest bidder. In other words, the global oil market needs to remain integrated. Nobody should use military muscle to secure a privileged position within it. Yes, and my grandmother has wheels. What is called for is a realistic recognition that the time has come to reduce, not enhance OPEC's economic power and that we will all pay dearly if we squander the opportunity to develop alternative energy sources (though not food based biofuel which leads to higher food costs), presented by the current high price of oil. For ultimately, nothing less is at stake than the peace and prosperity of our global community. These are comments submitted by American Thinker readers of the article: How about 500K bpd as the charge for protection. No pay, no protection and possible invasion. See if that makes their tent flaps, flap in the breeze.
Absolutely spot-on until the last paragraph. The "alternative sources" position is nothing more than wishful thinking. If such sources were viable, they would be producing now. Science proceeds in leaps and it is inherently unpredictable. We can't decide to make fossil fuels obsolete and do it any more than we can decide to make cancer obsolete. We can work towards that goal, like we work towards alternative fuels. We don't shut down chemotherapy centers while we devote all efforts towards some magic all-purpose cellular cure. Similarly, we have vast oil resources available to us at this moment. The Gulf of Mexico is in the process of being handed over to the Cuban-Chinese connection and the Sierra Club et al. are running this country's energy program. Peace and prosperity are the product of strength; strength is not derived from windmills, solar panels or anything other than fossil fuels. This stuff used to be called "natural resources" and it built this country and our way of life. The process of science will be proceeding as we continue to grow and flourish. Eventually, probably within the next century, breakthroughs will have occurred and gasoline, like the horse, will have a place in history. It's up to us to determine whether the Chinese and their pals are the ones driving the engine.
We are reaping the bitter harvest of being crisis oriented instead of having had an energy security plan in place that provides us with a reliable, abundant, and, dare I say it, cheap, supply of energy. This piece merely complains about control of sources of petroleum of sovereign nations and cartels. Who are we to tell them how and when to market their resources? We are not developing our own resources in an effective manner. We will not drill. We will not develop new refining capability. We will not install new nuclear power generation facilities (instead we generate electricity with nat gas, an incredible waste of a precious resource). We bow down to environmentalism and act like neurotic self-destructionists about our economy and way of life (if you want to see REAL pollution, go to China!!). We install a few windmills and pat ourselves on the back. We drive in hybrids and pat ourselves on the back. Etc. Etc. Unfortunately, that will not get the job done! So, rather than look at ourselves and devise our own solutions for our problems, we prefer to be outraged about what people in other countries are doing to us. It's not a demand problem with others limiting our supply, it's a supply problem with us limiting our own supply.... We are the problem, but we could also provide our own solution.
Congress has done nothing meaningful since 9/11 to help the US have real choices for alternative energy. We still can build many more nuclear plants, expand hydro-electric power options, open ANWAR to oil production, oil shale development, improve wind efficiency, etc.. On all these issues politicians, especially the treasonous Democrats, have failed to help the country. Even this Friday the Democrats on the the Senate Appropriations Committee on Friday blocked the Republican attempts to end its moratorium on oil shale development in Colorado. According to IBD: "This was no minor thing. Estimates put the amount of oil locked in shale in both Canada and the U.S. at more than 1 trillion barrels. Pulling out even a tenth of that would quadruple our current reserves."
its easy to blame the arabs when the real problem is we allow a few fools to keep us from using our on oil.why should the saudie's help us we we wont help ourselfs
The Saudis are business people trying to strike the best deal they can both now and for the future. It is the height of hubris for any country to tell them how to do business. If we don't like it, we have to take our business elsewhere. If there is no other elsewhere, then we better start producing oil ourselves –– just like the good old days when we used to do that! As much as I hate the thought of paying the Saudis all this money for oil so that they can finance international terrorism, I find it just as appalling to be begging them to sell it to us. Meanwhile the liberals dig their heels in over nuclear power, increased drilling, and more refineries.
Supply and demand... U.S. pop growing toward half a billion by 2050. Mostly because of immigrants/offspring ...
The facts are that we are in the position we are in because we let Environmentalism and NIMBY(not in my back yard) run amok. The idea that we have not added between 50 and 100 nuclear facilities in the last 25 years is the defination of absurd. The same can be said for the continued non-drilling in Alaska and offshore.
We can only blame ourselves, we elected these idiots both locally and at the national level.
Its hard to tell whether the biggest threat to our security is OPEC or Congress. OPEC usually seems to be acting well within the range of there own self interest, but I can't say as much for congress. Instead of acting to increase the supply of our own petroleum resources our congressional cowards: -restrict off shore oil exploration and production off both east and west coasts If Congress were to act to open up oil production,and move aggressively to develop other energy sources we would soon see a very different attitude in OPEC.
Julie McKinley: 'The "alternative sources" position is nothing more than wishful thinking. If such sources were viable, they would be producing now.'
Actually, there is a perfectly viable source –– the nuclear source, the most viable source. The only reason that it's not being used now on in a serious way is because the US Federal Government has issued restrictive legislation which: 1) fails to provide enough nuclear fuel 2) discourages utilities and the USN to recycle spent nuclear fuel (which is reusable) 3) discourages utilities from building new nuclear reactors.
The real problem is that the Saudi's are producing flat out. Those water drive resorvoirs have a definite end.
I am all for nuclear energy but until they can make a car run on plutonium we still need to explore and develop our domestic oil resources.
We created the cartel, we can break it. It requires resolve that the chattering nannys in our country do not have. We have oil, we just need to go get it. At this point it will take a while. If in fact a few hundred thousand barrels a day can change the picture we can do it. The problem is that being a rich nation we have spawned a bunch of folks who take their well being for granted and have not worked in a productive sense a day in their lives. We have created any number more lawyers than we need, many graduating from raidcally activist law schools. That is why we have this problem. Oil is messy but it can be produced with minimal damage. We have reserves all around this country that are economic at these prices. The problem is, it take years to get through the legal process. Too many folks believe transportaion runs on hot air. I love folks who object to all of this driving their eight cylinder vehicles, coming out of there fully electrfied homes where everything is instant on, having hot water to wash with and so on. I just listened to someone go on and on about plug in cars and hybrids. So I said how are you going to make the power? Gas, nukes, coal how are is it going to generated ? The look was sort of like you mean it doesn't just come out of the socket.
This reminds me of the person who twenty years ago told me I was wrong when I said a cow had to calve to continue giving milk. I think dairy farmers would know I was correct, but then if you only get milk from the store what is a cow? If you take petrol for granted what is a well? If you take electricity for granted what is a generating station? We have the ability to solve this.
Like paying the Saudis? Thank a Democrat. Like the Chinese drilling off our shore, thank a Democrat. Like 4.00 gas, thank a Democrat.
There is nothing this country could not do if it were not for Congress. Maybe it is time to take the pitchforks to WA DC?
Mazurak is correct the Saudis are not raising production because ... they can't. Their fields are beginning to produce alot of water. Water can become the limiting factor in the ability to produce oil because it has to be processed at surface and disposed of. In oil industry terms –– their wells are beginning to run "dry". Bush had to ask just to show everyone that he is concerned, he knows the real situation. Indonesia another OPEC country –– has become a net oil importer and is desperately attempting to reverse this situation. Chavez and Putin have put their respective oilfields in the toilet by forcing out western oil companies and thus losing the expertise necessary to increase production. China, India and any other developing economy are factors in increasing demand. Plenty of evidence points toward a supply demand imbalance. The oil industry is responding but large quantiities of new reserves are only going to be found in deepwater or shallow water remote locations –– or in areas currently off limits to Exploration (Angola, Brazil, US OCS, etc).
I agree with both sides of this issue. We need to blame ourselves for not developing alternative fuels years ago. This research should have gone into high hear after the 1973 embargo crisis. Will we never learn? And I also blame Congress. They allow 10% of the country dictate what the other 90% want to do. We need to take our government back from the NIMBY Liberals.
Maybe the "world" encompassed by the borders of USA is "mesmerized" by the Democratic primaries but the remaining 99% of the World does not care, couldn't be bothered and probably is unaware of the tedious electoral procedures of the US. We in Australia get our elections (including the Federal election) over and done with in no more than 6 weeks. Then we get on with our lives.
Why is it that we Americans allow the "14%" to make all our decisions for us??? Why are we dependant on Saudi oil when we have our own sources. What is stopping us from drilling our own wells and taking care of our own. When did we become so whiny and dependant.How can we reverse this trend? If it is imposed by only 14% of the population how did they get so much power???and how do we shut them up and put them outside to play or better yet.....in "time out?"
American troops still defend an anti American Europe because it is in her interest to do so. Thus will America continue to defend the Persian Gulf oil kleptocracies no matter how anti Western their oil producing policies are, not because America likes them but because it is in her interest to do so. The Saudis and all the rest of those tin pot dictatorships know this and so do the Americans.
Jeffrey –– AFAIK, no plutonium-powered cars nor electric plug-in cars are currently being produced anywhere in the world, but there are alternatives to cars: bullet trains, which can be powered by nuclear reactors (as in some European countries).
The newest bullet trains (e.g. TGVs and AGVs) offer a speed of up to 224 mph (360 kph), wireless broadband, restaurant cars, onboard telephones, and even compartments where you can plug-in your computer to use it onboard the train.
The only reason why bullet trains don't exist in the US is that cash-strapped state governments can't afford them, and the Federal Government, which has a $3 trillion budget, is not paying for them, even though a bullet train network in the Midwest would cost less than $10 bn. On the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak does not need to upgrade the tracks, merely to buy new rolling stock. However, the President's proposed FY2009 budget is reducing funds for the USDOT across the board. The entire FRA will need to content itself with a $1.094 billion budget if the President's request is approved by lawmakers.
I'm a transmission planning engineer and can give the following characterization to renewables: 1. Wind-a limited use, not very reliable source, likely will stay "exotic"
Summary: renewables likely will have a limited (~20%?) practical use...
Nukes are good but as a base-load and cannot integrate renewables. Thus, some coal/gas is still needed (unless unexpected technological breakthrough happened!)
It's possible that the Saudi's –– and OPEC generally –– are thinking shorter term. It's apparent that Barack Hussein Obama is a sentimental favorite of many Arabs and Africans. That's understandable, just as John Fitzgerald Kennedy was a sentimental favorite of many Catholics and Irish. But I also think it's possible that their desire to see Mr. Obama in the White House extends beyond mere sentimentality. They could see in him someone who is much less inclined to think of the United States' traditional "national Interest" as defined by previous generations of American administrations –– in effect, someone who is far more willing to see the world "their way" and radically redefine America's stance on many issues in their favor. Other OPEC members and would-be third world wanna-be "leaders" like Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would look forward to dealing with a President Obama for their own, similar reasons. By keeping the current price of oil extremely high and putting the squeeze on the American consumer, they perpetuate the general feeling of angst currently pervading the country and which generally, during an election year, manifests itself as a rebellion against the perceived "party in power" at the time, usually defined in the public mind as whichever one holds the White House (this mood is certainly being abetted by the mainstream press which ignores the overwhelming dominance of the Democrats in the Congress since 2004). This tool was used before in the 1980's when Ronald Reagan and the Saudi's colluded to drop oil prices to record lows and destroy the only access the Soviet Union had to hard currency to bail out its collapsing economy. This tool is crude (no pun intended) and lots of nations suffer in the short term but such is the way these things work. The major members of OPEC have powerful reasons to want Barack Obama as the next President of the United States and they have a powerful and simple method to manipulate the presidential election and help sway the American electorate, not so much in favor of Democrat Obama but against his Republican opponent. It will be interesting to see if oil prices come down significantly after the election –– particularly if Obama wins.
let us face an important factor and a known, but not
what can be said that hasn't been said by all. the ground
work is being done for the next world war while our elected folks are looking into the real problems like
NFL spygate. Will we be able
to wake up or go on the ash
heap of history like so many
self absorbed civilizations
in the past.
Alex –– normally I wouldn't argue with a transmission planning engineer, but:
a) solars' storage may work 24/7 but solars themselves don't. Solars don't work during nights, only during days.
2) 1000MWs is very little. A single Areva EPR nuclear reactor is 600MWs more powerful. And if America cannot recycle its spent nuclear fuel, France can. There is already a huge nuclear waste recycling facility in La Hague (50), France.
If I was President I would tell Al Gore and his new agers to shut
up now. The lies are starving people around the world and giving Islam
a step ahead. Many countries have oil and we are one of them. I say
dril and hurry up..and some say building refineries takes ten
yrs,,hurry up! And despite all who don't care or believe, Israel is
going to hit oil. In Ezekiel, he tells us they become the wealthyest
nation in the world,,they aren't now, so how do you think they will??
Zion oil will hit oil. And why in the devil did we ever build the
Saudi's refineries? Oh, thats right, the global freaks, on both sides,
left and right. and consertive,,gone long ago. How blind. Will there
be war? you can bet you life on it. Not only nation against nation,
but civil wars, black against white, and ethnic against ethnic..anyone
who can't see that, go read your bible that most won't or don't know
how to read. It has never been wrong. And guess what, Israel will win
this last war too. IN the meantime, lies are in all gov, just as it is
written. the rich want to rule the poor and will for awhile,,denial is
everywhere in and out of religions..It doesn't matter what you think,
it is what G-d says will be..He never does anything, but to tell us
first. more up to date than the times. You see, Sunni against Shiite
is ongoing, and Islam is here too. You can sleep for a while but one
day you will be too hungry to eat if you had
it..ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ and when they say peace, then comes sudden
destruction..you can take that to your bank..
Whatever is wrong with the USA, the professional, political parasites are to blame. They cannot lie their way out of anymore catastrophies. Their greed and hunger for power is in plain sight. They do not give a rat's @$$ about me, you or our country. Their ONLY concern is keeping their position of power. Until "WE THE PEOPLE..." vote EVERY incumbent out of office our country will continue on a deadly spiral into socialism. Obama and Clinton know that socialism has been, is and always will be a miserable failure. Yet both of them are hell bent on destroying our country with socialism.
The insanity of the oil situation is quite simply this, we are
spending billions every day for foreign oil. That money is used by
Muslims who sponsor terrorist that are sworn to kill ALL infidels in
their quest for their Caliphate of world dominance. The health,
welfare and safety of wild animals is more important to professional,
political parasites than ours. Why do you continue to vote for these
morons? Everything is going to be worse than today. Tomorrow prices
will rise on everything you purchase...because we are dependent on
foreign oil. All we get are stupid, lamebrained excuses by these
morons who insist on creating fuel from FOOD. Why do we allow these
fools to remain in office?
Here is the list of demands handed to me recently by Saudi Officials:
Green Cards
Access to the CIA FBI and other acronym driven security thingies.
Women. Lots and lots of white women.
College. We want to go to college.
Flight schools.
Truck driving schools.
We don't have these things in Saudi Arabia.
We want to buy the following bits of inconsequential property. ANWR in Alaska. The Northwestern part of North Dakota.
Louisiana.
The Gulf of Mexico.
This is just for starters. We will be back at Christmas time with a new list.
PS. The King wants another segway.
Saudi Arabia wants to be rich(er). That's the long and short of it. Since OPEC is a monopoly, and oil is an essential good, they can charge whatever they want short of a price that provokes a severe response from the U.S. In the short term, the one bit of leverage I think we have to possibly
persuade the Saudis to supply more oil is the Palestinians. Tell
Abdullah that unless the price of oil goes down to $50 a barrel, we'll
look the other way and leave the Palestinians to fend for themselves
at the mercy of Israel.
The sad reality is that Americans are not going to accept "radical
social reengineering" that would be required to lick this problem. If
we were, it would have already started. And any President (either
party) knows that if they even attempt it, there will be a revolution.
The ruling elites are scared to death of the middle class. What a
mess.
In response to PNC above, personally I don't think any of the Arab
countries care about Palestine or the Palestinians... they just use
them for political necessity. If they truly were concerned with them,
they would have created a state for them long ago. And the
Palestinians themselves don't care about a nation of their own,
they're just bent on the destruction of Israel.
The Saudis know that their huge lake of oil under their Eastern Province is drying up and past the peak of production. As Judy Klinghoffer notes in her AmericanThinker piece, increasingly water is the product of their drilling. Using the OPEC cartel they want to simply maximize their declining revenues, which current speculation in the oil markets readily assures them trillions that flow into their coffers for reinvestment via sovereign wealth funds and export of Wahhabi xenophobic hate to the rest of the World, including the Muslim ummah. But Saudi Arabia is not alone in that regard, Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation, has become a net oil importer as its reserves have plummeted. The big major oil finds are in the Gulf of Guinea and West Africa, offshore of Brazil and even the US Gulf of Mexico, that the Chinese and Cubans are exploiting. If the current speculative 'bubble' bursts, as all bubbles inevitably do like the 'dot.com' one of 1999-2000 or the current housing bubble and credit crisis, then the flow of funds in Saudi and Gulf Emirate coffers will slow. Iran will also be effected profoundly by the oil price bubble burst as it subsidizes and rations domestic consumption. So, perhaps we have a multi-pronged approach to fend off 'what the Saudis want'. It would include Congressional investigation of the current oil price bubble and fostering market conditions that blow it up. Nevertheless, we should, even if oil prices fall to 'real cost levels' of $40 to $65 a barrel, promote the opening of US domestic and federal waters to oil production. Good examples are North Dakota and the Gulf of Mexico. We should convert the hundreds of years of coal using available technology into synthetic gas to drive our cars, trucks, airplanes and even peak power plants powered by gas turbines. Then, prior to the bow wave of nuclear energy plants (approximately 138 currently under construction) arriving on stream by 2015 wean us off hydrocarbons by converting our vehicle fleets to 'plug ins'. There are credible oil shale developments in the Green River and Bakken Formation, but require significant capital, even at these towering market prices. These suggestions and conservation would help, materially, and not subject us to either the Saudi plan to control alternative energy source development and finally break the OPEC cartel. So, ask yourself a question. Just who is behind a 30% run up in oil prices in the past five months, while world oil demand has increased by less than 1%? Something fishy is going on, and causing speculation. Find out who is doing it and you may be surprised as to how rapidly the oil price bubble deflates producing a Bronx cheer to the Saudis and other OPEC cartel members. But let's get going on a rational energy plan and use the markets to prioritize the solutions. Congress has to wake up on this soon, especially as this is an election year. After all their overall rating is far below that of even President Bush 18.7% versus 27%.
Dr. Judith Apter Klinghoffer is the author of Vietnam, Jews and the Middle East: Unintended Consequences, the co-author of International Citizens' Tribunals: Mobilizing Public Opinion to Advance Human Rights and a History News Network blogger. Contact her by email at jklinghoff@aol.com This article was
posted on the American Thinker
|
|
MUJAHIDEEN MONITOR U.S. ECONOMY, ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE DOLLAR
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 17, 2008. |
|
This comes from MEMRI Islamist Websites Monitor Project. It is Special Dispatch No. 1961, and was issued yesterday. To view the MEMRI Islamist Websites Monitor Project, visit http://memriiwmp.org/ |
|
Numerous postings on Islamist websites in the past two years reflect the mujahideen's growing interest in the state of the U.S. economy. As was argued in a 2007 MEMRI analysis,(1) many of the jihadists and their supporters have come to view their struggle against the U.S. and the West as an economic war. More specifically, they have come to the conclusion that it is financial, rather than military, losses that will prompt the U.S. to change its policies in the Middle East and elsewhere. Consequently, they emphasize the importance of targeting U.S. interests around the world, and of directing their military jihad primarily at targets that affect the U.S. economy. "The Dollar Can Expect Two Additional Blows That Will Break Its Back" The mujahideen's growing interest in undermining U.S. economy is reflected, for example, in an article in the 26th issue of the GIMF's e-magazine Sada Al-Jihad (Echo of Jihad), recently posted on Al-Hesbah and on other Islamist websites.(2) The article, titled "Why the Dollar Collapsed and How America Controls the Price of Oil," discusses the factors that contributed to the devaluation of the dollar in recent years. The author lists among the key factors the economic damage caused by Hurricane Katrina; the losses caused by the September 11 attacks; the cost of the war on terror and of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; the U.S.'s persistent trade deficit and growing government debt; investors' growing faith in the Euro; the recent subprime crisis in the U.S.; and the fact that financial institutions around the world have started to reduce their dollar reserves, thereby flooding the market with dollars and decreasing the demand for this currency. The author ends his analysis with the following threat: "The dollar can expect two additional blows that will break its back... [namely] the announcement of the return of the Caliphate..." and the reinstatement of the gold standard in international monetary trade. "Get Rid of [Your] American Dollars... and Buy Gold" A recent posting on the Al-Ikhlas forum urges the mujahideen and their supporters to sell their dollars, if they have any, because Al-Qaeda is planning a strike inside the U.S. so that it will undermine the American economy: "[I advise you] to get rid of [your] American dollars... and buy gold instead... or real estate. The next attack inside the U.S. is imminent... Zawahiri will convey his instructions [regarding this attack] in his next [message]... This attack will put an end to the so-called United States of America and destroy its economy completely... The day of the attack is very near..."(3) Given that it is highly atypical for Al-Qaeda to give prior warning of its attacks, the message is probably an attempt to pressure Muslims to sell dollars, in order to generate pessimism in the dollar market and thus accelerate the drop in its value. Endnotes: (1) See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 387 "The Battle... Is Economic
Rather than Military" –– An Economically Oriented Concept of Jihad
Emerges in Islamist Discourse," September 11, 2007,
Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
PROTESTERS CALL FOR RELEASE OF HALAMISH BROTHERS
Posted by Lee Caplan, June 17, 2008. |
|
[EDITOR'S NOTE: See below for background.] This was written by Avi Tuchmayer and it appeared June 8, 2008 in Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNN.com) |
|
(IsraelNN.com) The Women in Green organization protested Tuesday at the Jerusalem International Convention Center at Binyanei Hauma to call for the release of Itzik and Danny Halamish, residents of the Gush Etzion community of Ma'aleh Rechavam. The two brothers are currently serving eight months in jail for allegedly shooting Arabs who infiltrated the community in February, 2004. The protest coincided with the "Third Annual Conference on Quality of the Government." Women in Green Chairwoman Nadia Matar told IsraelNationalNews.com that although the protest was small (approximately 20 people participated), the experience of standing to support the Halamish brothers was powerful and inspiring. "We protested outside the conference for about an hour, then went to the Jerusalem Central Bus Station across the street to pass out flyers and to educate people about the fate of two innocent Jews who are not guilty of anything more than trying to protect themselves, their neighbors and their community. "There, in the bus station, we could really feel the power of Am Yisrael rising up. People just don't know anything about this story because the mainstream media has censored itself away from reporting on the story at all, but once people learned about it they showed a genuine desire to help. We came away truly inspired, and would like to go back to the bus station to hand out flyers at least a couple of times a month," she said. Aharon Halamish: Case is a 'Stain' on Israeli Justice System The protest was particularly notable due to the presence of Aharon and Edna Halamish, parents of the prisoners and residents of the Samaria town of Ofra. Aharon Halamish noted that the conference seemed to have few attendees, but said that the passersby that he spoke to outside the convention center were sympathetic to his sons' plight once they heard about it. He also said his family is concentrating efforts now on obtaining a pardon from President Shimon Peres. "We aren't asking Peres for mercy," he said. "We are asking him to correct a total miscarriage of justice, one that is a stain on Israel's system of justice. The district court that sentenced them to prison admitted that there had been problems with the trial, but they chose to maintain the verdict and sentence because of 'technical reasons.' They had obviously decided on an outcome in advance, worked towards obtaining that verdict and stuck to it once they had it." The Halamish family has called on the public to help pressure officials to release the two brothers, Itzik and Danny. Faxes calling for their release should be sent to President Shimon Peres at (02) 561-1033. Contact Lee Caplan at leescaplan@yahoo.com |
|
RABBAN GAMLIEL: BEAUTIFUL IS THE STUDY OF TORAH WITH THE WAY OF THE WORLD
Posted by Avodah, June 17, 2008. |
|
Rabban Gamliel the son of Rabbi Judah HaNassi would say: Beautiful is the study of Torah with the way of the world, for the toil of them both causes sin to be forgotten. Ultimately, all Torah study that is not accompanied with work is destined to cease and to cause sin. –– Ethics of the Fathers 2:2 Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com |
|
TERRORISTS WOUND OWN CIVILIANS; NO SENSE TO GAZA POLICY; ISLAMISTS REACH INTO ISRAELL; OLMERT'S SPEECH VS ACTIONS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 27, 2008. |
|
TERRORISM MORE THAN AL-QAEDA Although al-Qaeda is like a headquarters of terrorism, affiliated organizations and radicalized individuals can continue terrorism even if al-Qaeda were destroyed. Some isolated terrorist organizations may set up alliances with major ones. What needs to be destroyed more than al-Qaeda is its ideology (lost source). WIKIPEDIA Wikipedia is a website that accepts anonymous articles. Usually its articles are anti-Israel. They get accepted without fact-checking. Therefore, Wikipedia has become a source of misinformation for many people disinclined to do real research, using sources that have academic integrity. The organization, CAMERA, invited volunteers to submit their own articles to it for editing, so as to provide researched information to counter the bias. An Arab sympathizer mischaracterized CAMERA's effort to gain some fairness as a plot to control the site and in a biased fashion. Wikipedia personnel fired the editors who sought balance (IMRA, 6/1). HOW ARAB TERRORISTS WOUND THEIR OWN CIVILIANS A terrorist had an explosive device at home. He mishandled it, killing one family member and wounding about ten more. Children and women were wounded (IMRA, 6/1). Have you heard any of the humanitarian organizations chastising the terrorists for injuring and endangering their own civilians? I haven't. They seem only to accuse Israel, which strives not to injure enemy civilians. I think that Israel tries too hard, risking its own people's lives. AFGHANISTAN OBJECTS TO BORDER RAIDS The head of Afghanistan warned the Taliban to stop raiding his country from Pakistan, or his army would pursue them into Pakistan. Pres. Karzai said he is within his rights. US and NATO forces already have drones raid Taliban camps just over the border in Pakistan. The new rulers of Pakistan made a truce with the Taliban and al-Qaida. The result is a 50% increase in raids into Afghanistan (Tom Coghlan, NY Sun, 6/16, p.6). Meanwhile, the Taliban entrench themselves in Pakistan. Eventually, they would turn to conquering Pakistan. Pakistan's rulers made a mistake. Can't make deals with evil forces. How do you evaluate Karzai's threat? MAKING SENSE OF JERUSALEM STATISTICS The Jerusalem Inst. For Jewish Studies released some population statistics. Fertility rates among Arabs fell and among Jews rose. They almost are even, in the capital city. There remains a sizeable Jewish exodus. No explanation was given for any of this (IMRA, 6/1). From where the Jews are moving and from what I know of Jerusalem, I'd say it all is explained by modernization among the Arabs and an increasing proportion of Jerusalemites being religious, with high birth rates. Secular Jews often don't feel comfortable among sizeable numbers of strictly observant Jews. NO SENSE TO GAZA POLICY Egypt confiscated 30 anti-aircraft missiles en route to be smuggled into Gaza. There they would imperil low-flying helicopters. Assuming that some such missiles have been brought in already or soon will be, the IDF now will take such weapons into account. (How it takes it into account was unstated.) Losing some of its freedom of action is the price it is paying for not having paid a price in invading Gaza in force and rooting out all the terrorists (IMRA, 6/1). A stitch in time saves nine. Helicopters were one of the chief means of liquidating terrorists. Hamas kept warning of surprises it would spring on the IDF. That must be one. MAKING SENSE OF CABINET POLITICS Cabinet Member Mofaz criticized Defense Min. Barak for negotiating, even indirectly, with Hamas, without Cabinet approval. A Minister should not make foreign policy on his own. His movement towards a truce with Hamas would give it a victory (and the opportunity to bring in more arms to kill Israelis with, later). Others criticized Barak for declaring Olmert unfit to continue in power, yet he fails to leave the coalition and dislodge Olmert from power (IMRA, 6/1). The Cabinet used to be a coalition of equal ranking party leaders. Since then, the Prime Minister, in that country without a Constitution imposing limits, has usurped the role of the Cabinet. When PM Sharon assumed the right to fire Cabinet Members until he was left with yes-men, he downgraded the Cabinet to bureaucrats. In that country whose government assumes the right to forbid or license so much more than the US government, the Prime Minister required Israelis to get more approval for construction in the Territories from the Defense Minister, whose policy was his own. In the case of Hamas, either Barak is working with Olmert's approval or Olmert is too weak to control him. After all, if Barak pulls his party out of the coalition, Olmert's regime falls and then he has no leverage with prosecutors sitting on half a dozen criminal investigations of him. EGYPT'S CHRISTIANS PROTEST An historic monastery was attacked for the 18th time. Dozens of assailants kidnapped three monks, leaving one person dead and several wounded. Hundreds of Copts protested that their complaints of constant attacks and Muslim harassment are ignored by police in this increasingly Islamic state (IMRA, 6/2). Sometimes police don't ignore complaints –– they arrest the complainers. This oppression isn't news except probably to readers of the NY Times. The Times omits much news that would show Egypt to be more with the evil axis than with us, and Islam to be no religion of peace and tolerance, with just a few fanatics making all the difficulty. Full reporting would give many readers the idea that Israel cannot make accommodating deals with the Muslims. SAUDI CRITICIZES SHIITES A Saudi Sunni cleric criticized Shiites for destabilizing countries in the region, such as Iraq and Lebanon. S. Arabia's main oil-bearing region is where its Shiites are a majority (IMRA, 6/2). He is right. On the other hand, stability before meant that Sunnis oppressed Shiites. Oh, how secure life would be for them all if they practiced tolerance and non-violence and democracy! ISLAMISTS REACH INTO ISRAEL This is in addition to Israel letting foreign Arabs settle in Israel and letting Israeli Arabs bring in Islamist preachers. Israel allows within its borders an Islamist "Islamic Movement." Some Israeli Arabs study in Jordan and become influenced by Islamist notion of the duty to fight infidels. So it was that two Arabs from Lod plotted to kidnap Israeli Jews, and a third failed to report them. All were arrested (IMRA, 6/2). Israel violates the Talmudic injunction against tolerating the intolerant. Its police were vigilant, this time and many times. Luck doesn't last. If Israel doesn't expel its Muslims, at least it should bar Islamist organizations and enforce the law against Arabs and do something against the Arab drive to take over the country. It would have to stop imagining that Israeli Arabs are not enticed by the Islamists. GERMANY & UNO RELEASE PRISONER-EXCHANGE PLAN They plan that Hizbullah would return the bodies of two, kidnapped Israeli soldiers, and get ten Hizbullah bodies, four live prisoners, many Palestinian Arab prisoners, and maps of mine fields (IMRA, 6/2). That's a mediated deal? It sounds like Hizbullah's demands. Trade Olmert for dead bodies! INTERPRETING MIDEASTERN NEGOTIATIONS Negotiations have been going on for an accommodation in Lebanon, a deal between Syria and Israel, and a truce with Hamas. The US disapproves but has been sidelined. "Peace" cannot be stopped (NY Times Op.-Ed., 6/3). The negotiations have nothing to do with peace. The US was right to oppose them but wrong not to have appropriate the force needed to have helped Lebanon maintain independence. The accommodation with Hizbullah curbed Lebanese independence and gave free reign to Hizbullah, which intends anything but peace. A ceasefire with Hamas does not mean peace but war with a better armed Hamas, which is why Islam approves of truces. Whatever Syria promises, a treaty with Israel would better position it for war. Its alliance with Iran and the terrorists indicate that it has not abandoned its mode of aggression. OLMERT SPEECH CONTRADICTS OLMERT ACTIONS? PM Olmert's said that Jerusalem's unification was made to "ensure Israeli sovereignty in historic and sacred Jerusalem forever." He said Israel believes in freedom of religion. Meanwhile, his negotiations are arranging to split Jerusalem, and part with its most historic and sacred area, the Temple Mount (IMRA, 6/2). As for freedom of religion, Islam doesn't believe in it. In any case, the Arabs denied freedom of religion when they controlled the Old City of Jerusalem, they destroy ancient Jewish tombs and synagogues in the P.A., and they threaten to bar Jews from the holy tombs of Hebron if they regain control over it. Olmert's stated sentiment exploits fellow Jews' feelings that his devious policy contradicts. ISRAELI PLAN ON WATER The government of Israel, slow to deal with its growing water shortage, now has a $2 billion plan. The plan involves new pricing arrangements, more conservation (hopefully), more desalination, and more recycling (Arutz-7, 6/2). The plan didn't say whether it would price water so as to discourage the present, profligate usage. No mention was made of the gift of water made in the treaty with Jordan. No mention was made of desalination's lavish use of fuel to evaporate and separate sea water from salt. Al Gore won't like it. The plan did not indicate the annual shortfall, the shortfall accumulated from past years, nor how fast the plan would catch up. This doesn't mean the plan is deficient; perhaps the reporting of it is. Many plans do not organize the facts into a cost-benefit analysis. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear regularly in 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 |
|
ISRAELI DRUG IS WORLD'S FIRST PROVEN TO SLOW PARKINSON'S
Posted by Avodah, June 17, 2008. |
|
This was written by Judy Siegel-Itzkovich
and was published in the Jerusalem Post
|
|
The Israel Parkinson Association welcomed with "excitement and joy" the results of a study showing Parkinson's drug Azilect (rasagiline), developed by Profs. Moussa Youdim and John Finberg of the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, to be effective at slowing the progression of the chronic and fatal neurological disease, a first for any drug. The ADAGIO study, which treated 1,176 patients with early Parkinson's at 129 medical centers in 14 countries over a period of 18 months, is one of the largest ever conducted on Parkinson's disease. The treatment groups received Azilect, and their progress was compared with control groups. Israel's Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. has the rights to Azilect, just as it has control over and manufactures Copaxone, the other drug developed wholly in Israel (by Weizmann Institute of Science researchers) for multiple sclerosis. Azilect's impressive results were announced by Teva on Monday. Parkinson's disease is an age-related degenerative disorder of the brain whose symptoms can include tremors, stiffness, slowness of movement and impaired balance. An estimated four million people worldwide suffer from the disease, which usually affects people over the age of 60. In the randomized, double-blind ADAGIO study, the drug was found to be effective, safe and well tolerated. Teva intends to submit these results to the regulatory authorities in the US and Europe. Based on these results, the drug could become the first Parkinson's disease treatment in the world to receive a label for "disease modification." Azilect received the approval of the US Food and Drug Administration for sale in the spring of 2006. Israel Parkinson Association chairman Daniel Neuman said that "as Israelis, we are proud that the hope for all the world's Parkinson patients emanates from Israel, as Azilect is a blue-white, Israeli-developed drug. "Last year, we tried but failed to persuade the Health Ministry's public committee that recommends new drugs for inclusion in the basket of health services to put Azilect on the list, arguing that it was a vital drug. Now we believe that the results of the ADAGIO study will pave the way for inclusion" of Azilect in the basket, which will require all the health funds to provide it at state subsidy to relevant patients. Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com |
|
ADS 4 ISRAEL
Posted by Barbara Sommer, June 16, 2008. |
|
Israel Does amazing things for the world. But hardly anyone knows Help us spread the word Contact Barbara Sommer by email at sommer_1_98@worldnet.at.net |
|
MCCARTHY'S THE VISITOR. HAS A SUITCASE FULL OF WRONG ATTITUDES
Posted by Phyllis Chesler, June 16, 2008. |
|
This is called
"Help! The Visitor." and I posted it today on the Chesler Chronicles
|
|
Has everyone seen Thomas McCarthy's universally praised film The Visitor? Or at least read the reviews about it? Having no idea what the film was about, I slipped in yesterday expecting to see a "romantic comic drama" which is how the snapshot review described it. What I saw instead was a poignant, touching film about illegal immigration in post 9/11 America which, I now understand, has been embraced by almost every film critic. Now, guess where the illegal immigrants are from. Which country or countries with terrifyingly surreal human rights records and almost permanent civil wars do our sympathetic heroes hail from? Congo or Sudan perhaps-or is it Rwanda or Somalia? How about Algeria, the former Yugoslavia, Guatemala, Chile, even Mexico since Mexican immigration is such a hot-button issue for us? Of course, the illegal immigrants Tareq, Zainab, and Mouna (played movingly, brilliantly, by Haaz Sleiman, Dana Jekesai Gurira, and Hiam Abbass), are all Muslims from Syria and Senegal. They encounter a heartless, Orwellian American Immigration Department which detains, transfers, and deports charming and innocent Arab Muslims. We, the viewer, share the hero's growing involvement in their plight. Richard Jenkins plays the professor-hero, Walter Vale, who is inevitably drawn into their plight. And, by the way, Mouna is Tareq's mother and she is an utterly charming and beautiful character. Mouna lives in Michigan where there is a large, radically Muslim population. Mouna's getting into bed with Walter her last night in America is not something that someone who lives in Dearborn, Michigan is going to do. This highly Westernized portrayal caters to Western sensibilities at the expense of reality. This is similar to what the film Paradise Now also did in terms of having a West Bank heroine who lives alone and lives quite an independent life. This kind of freedom is familiar to the West but forbidden and dangerous on the West Bank. The Visitor presents a familiar story line which I have previously written about. For example, I have written about two British films: One, envisions the assassination of President George Bush and the other is a fictional feature titled The Children of Men. Both films show innocent, highly sympathetic Arab Muslims who are wrongly accused, on the run, living in hiding. I have also written about a movie in which a Arab Saudi-like Prince is seen as the potential liberator of his people, especially women, but of course, he is assassinated by CIA operatives. While I personally know and love many sympathetic Muslim and ex-Muslim immigrants and totally understand that post 9/11 policy has led to tragic consequences for those Arab and non-Arab Muslims in flight from tyranny-I am equally concerned with the single-mindedness of the pro-Arab propaganda. Hollywood has not been making many films (and certainly no good films) about Arab Muslim terrorists. (There is The Kingdom, which I have also reviewed, but it received almost universal negative reviews. I thought it was an important film). They exist and the threat they pose is real but Hollywood is too politically correct to dramatize it. Their villains are still mainly white neo-Nazis, Nazi-era Nazis, and CIA agents. Mind you: I am not saying that such villains do not exist; they do. But c'mon, Hollywood, the media, and the university world are afraid to describe anyone as "Arab" or "Muslim" lest the mere description of reality be seen as "racist." Thus, countless mainstream media articles refer to the ethnic Arab Muslims who are gang-raping and genocidally slaughtering black African Muslims and Christians in Sudan as "insurgents," "rebels," "men on horseback," "government sanctioned troops," and sometimes as "Arabs" but rarely as Arab Muslims. I have an Israeli friend who covers Culture for a variety of Israeli newspapers. She told me that many of the best Israeli filmmakers are focused on portraying Israel's (small) role in Palestinian suffering. No Israeli filmmaker has depicted the (much larger) role that Arab and Palestinian leaders have played in Palestinian suffering. No Arab filmmaker has dared do so either. The Israeli films that are critical of Israeli policy are celebrated both in Israel and abroad. It speaks well for Israel that its artists and thinkers are free to criticize Israeli policy; if they are Jews, whether they are religious or not, they are actually fulfilling a Jewish religious commandment. The problem: No Arab country allows its thinkers to publicly criticize its policies and thus, the Muslim world as well as Europe and America have come to believe that only Israel commits terrible human rights abuses. This belief is out of proportion to reality. Who is funding what amounts to a perpetual propaganda machine against Israel and America? Inch by inch, film by film, people are becoming dangerously brainwashed. Thus, psychologically: All Arab Muslims are innocent victims; all Americans and Israelis are evil. Where will this end? What will become of us in the West? I realize that most Westerners who are critical of their government's policies do not really want to live in Afghanistan or Iran –– but they fail to understand that if they don't temper and balance their righteous criticism of western democracies, we might just end up living under even more repressive regimes. 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 s co-founder of the still ongoing Association for Women in Psychology (1969). Visit her website at http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/phyllischesler/ |
|
60 CONGRESSMEN DEMAND IRAQ RECOGNIZE ISRAEL OR LOSE AID
Posted by Avodah, June 16, 2008. |
|
This was written by Carl in Jerusalem and was posted today on his website:
|
|
Now this is an idea whose time has come. This is from "Congressman Wants Iraq To Recognize Israel", a news item in today's Arutz-7 (www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/148282). More than 60 Congressmen are supporting a non-binding resolution that would demand that the Iraqi government recognize Israel or lose billions of dollars in American aid. Neither the Bush administration nor the Israeli government has raised the issue. I wonder if President Bush had to touch down in Amman or Cairo when Air Force One flew from here to Saudi Arabia. And by the way, I can think of a few other countries that ought to have to recognize Israel or lose their US aid. Let's start with the 'Palestinian Authority' and Lebanon. Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com |
|
A BLIND EYE TO MUGABE'S REIGN OF TERROR
Posted by Shaul Ceder, June 16, 2008. |
|
This was written by Jeff Jacoby and it appeared today in Jewish World Review. |
|
The agonies being inflicted on Zimbabwe by its corrupt and brutal president are worsening. Earlier this month, the government of Robert Mugabe ordered international aid agencies to put a halt to the operations that have been keeping hundreds of thousands of Zimbabwe's people alive. With most of the country's population out of work and in dire poverty, the food and other humanitarian assistance provided by groups like CARE and Save the Children are more desperately needed than ever. By shutting them down, Mugabe and his henchmen were knowingly condemning countless vulnerable Zimbabweans to death. Mugabe claimed, preposterously, that the humanitarian agencies were trying "to cripple Zimbabwe's economy" and bring about "illegal regime change." Actually, it his own demented and dictatorial misrule that has destroyed the country, turning what was once a prosperous land into the world's most rapidly collapsing economy. And it is his determination to cling to power by any means –– including starving and terrorizing voters who support a change in government –– that has filled Zimbabwe not just with hunger and sickness but with savagery and bloodshed as well. Less than two weeks remain until the presidential election runoff between Mugabe, Zimbabwe's autocratic president for the last 28 years, and the popular opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, who leads the Movement for Democratic Change. Tsvangirai and the MDC won the first round of elections in March, and supporters of Mugabe and his ZANU-PF ruling party have been waging a vicious campaign of intimidation and violence against them ever since. Opposition rallies have been obstructed by police, and Tsvangirai has repeatedly been detained for hours at a time. On Thursday, the MDC's secretary general, Tendai Biti, was arrested and charged with treason. Thousands of opposition supporters have been attacked, arrested, or forced to flee for their lives. Homes have been torched; scores of people have been killed. International aid workers say they were shut down to keep them from witnessing the government's increasingly lethal crackdown. The depravity of those attacks is suggested by UNICEF, which has said that 10,000 children have been driven from their homes by the violence, and that schools taken over by progovernment forces are being used as torture centers. Peter Osborne, in a dispatch from Zimbabwe for The Mail on Sunday, a British newspaper, itemizes the methods of abuse favored by Mugabe's men: pouring boiling plastic on victims' backs, burning their extremities, and administering whippings violent enough to transform an adult's buttocks into a horrifying "mess of raw flesh." The latest description of Zimbabwe's reign of terror comes from Human Rights Watch, which in a new report documents numerous cases of brutal repression by Mugabe supporters.
"ZANU-PF and its allies have ... established torture camps and organized abusive 're-education' meetings around the country to compel MDC supporters into voting for Mugabe," the report says. Hundreds of voters have been flogged with sticks, whips, bicycle chains, and metal bars. In one "re-education" meeting May 5, "ZANU-PF officials and 'war veterans' beat six men to death and tortured another 70 men and women, including a 76-year-old woman publicly thrashed in front of assembled villagers." In other meetings, military officers have threatened to kill anyone who votes for the opposition. "Each villager would be given a bullet to hold in their hands. Then a soldier would say, 'If you vote for MDC in the presidential runoff election, you have seen the bullets, we have enough for each one of you, so beware.' " Mugabe's savage onslaught is likely to achieve its goal. Faced with starvation, dispossession, and threats of revenge, how many Zimbabweans will muster the courage to stand against him? But why do the rest of us do nothing? Why is the free world so indifferent to the enormities committed by Mugabe and his bullies? Where are the worldwide demonstrations outside Zimbabwe's embassies? Where are the international boycotts, the UN resolutions, the presidential and papal condemnations? Where is the International Criminal Court indictment of Mugabe for his long career of murder, torture, and other crimes against humanity? Let us be honest: If the people of Zimbabwe were being terrorized by a white despot –– if it were a white ruling party whose goons were beating them and burning their homes –– the whole world would be aroused on their behalf. Surely they deserve no less just because their oppressor is black. Contact Shaul Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il |
|
WHEN FACTS GET IN THE WAY
Posted by Aramy, June 16, 2008. |
|
This was written by Jonathan Foreman and it appeared in the
June 2008 Standpoint Online
|
|
British newspaper writing is famously more vigorous and readable than its American equivalent. But this comes at a price: there's a good chance that anything you read in a British newspaper isn't true. When I worked as a leader writer for an American paper I was embarrassed when I was told that it was official policy not to trust any item in any British paper except the FT. American journalists work within a stringent code of ethics. If a journalist for a major paper or TV network is found to have run a false story –– perhaps because it was "too good to check" –– ! then his or her career is generally over. In Britain, getting caught telling or repeating a lie is much less serious than cheating on expenses. This is especially true in the world of foreign reporting. Take the broadsheet reporters who claimed there had been a massacre at "Jeningrad" in the West Bank on the dubious word of a single source. Even after all parties to the conflict pointed out that this massacre was a fantasy, the hoodwinked correspondents retained the trust of their editors. There was the highly regarded foreign correspondent who won a prize for articles which included an interview with a top Taleban official who turned out not to exist at all. Nevertheless I continued to insist to my American bosses that we should generally trust British papers. Then I came across a story in an English broadsheet announcing that a British Special Boat Service commando was being considered for the Medal of Honor, America's highest military decoration and the equivalent of the Victoria Cross. After forwarding the piece to my boss, I was assigned to write a leader about this wonderful example of transatlantic appreciation. The defence correspondent of the British broadsheet in question had given no source for his claim. But less than five minutes research revealed that it was legally impossible for foreigners to be awarded the Medal of Honor. (The SBS commando did exist and had fought with extraordinary bravery.) Nevertheless the broadsheet had reported a mere rumour as fact. Apparently it was one of those stories that are simply "too good to check." Contact Aramy at Aramy964@gmail.com |
|
DISGUSTING MESSAGE FROM UGLY 'FRIEND'!; GOVERNMENT IN WAITING FOR COLLAPSE; NO ROOM FOR ISRAEL IN EGYPTIAN HEARTS
Posted by Steven Shamrak, June 16, 2008. |
|
DISGUSTING MESSAGE FROM UGLY 'FRIEND'! I have recently received the following message from one of my readers, the 'Jew-lover'. Unfortunately, there are still too many people like him around. At least this one does not hide his real state of mind and attitude behind fake smiles and 'well-mannered' back-stabbings. Personally, I hate the silent or polite bigots. (WARNING: decent people will find this statement disturbing): "Mr. Kike, Your Shamrak report is just another example of why you kike bastards need a REAL holocaust, the joo lies about the fake one in WWII. Keep spinning your kikes lies, but you cocksuckers' day is coming. The world will be a far better place when the last sheeny vampire breathes it's last foul breath! Hopefully, it will start with a nuclear bomb on Jerusalem! Have a nice day, joo! You bastards don't have many left!" –– Walt M. HAMAS CLAIMED CREDIT FOR MORE THAN 60 ROCKETS and mortars that pulverized southern Israel Thursday afternoon, one day after the Israeli government announced it was inclined to agree to a truce with the group. –– The Israeli prime minister's spokesman Mark Regev said: "The barrage of rockets today shows that Hamas has no interest in calm and is committed to violence, terror and murder." –– It took so long for Olmert's government to 'realise' it! Who needs another 'calm', only by the removal of the terror-infested population from Jewish land will Israel have peace! INVADE GAZA AND FINISH THE JOB. Former Gaza Arabs who aided Israel in the war against terror say the only way to end rocket attacks is to return to Gaza and clean out the weapons. Approximately 80 families living in the rocket-battered city of Sderot are Arabs from Gaza who were collaborators for Israeli intelligence before the destruction of Jewish communities and the IDF withdrawal from the area three years ago. Many of them are now advising the Israeli government to return to Gaza and clean out the area of terrorists and their weapons in order to bring peace. (Just another pretend Gaza operation is not enough. Gaza must be cleared of its terror-loving population and reunited with Israel!) JORDAN –– 'FRIENDLY' AND 'MODERATE' NEIGHBOUR. The Israeli delegation to the regional conference in Jordan on the subject of economic cooperation was refused entry into Jordan on Sunday. FOOD FOR THOUGHT. BY STEVEN SHAMRAK Several years ago I asked Tzipi Livni, possibly the next leader of Kadima, why Israel does not take seriously and do anything about the "Media War' or Asymmetrical Propaganda War. She dismissed the question without even trying to understand the issue or its importance. Israel needs a new and intelligent Jewish national Zionist Leadership! Another apathetic and pathetic, self-serving and corrupt leadership will bring only more pain and suffering. Coming Home at Last. An Iraqi Jewess kidnapped from her home 55 years ago, finally escaped and is making her way to Israel, where she will join the surviving members of her immediate family. Hannah Menashe was 21-years old, already married to a Jewish man, and on the verge of making aliyah (emigration to Israel) with her parents and seven siblings, when an Arab neighbour abducted her and she "disappeared off the face of the earth." Only after her abductor died was Menashe able to flee Iraq. She found her way to an Israeli consulate in Europe and told them she was Jewish and wanted to join her family in Israel. Lebanon Rejected Talks. Lebanon rejected a call made by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for peace talks and demanded that Israel withdraw from disputed territory along their international borders. (Israel's enemies do not want even to consider peace, but Israel is blamed by the UN and other 'Jew-loving' organisations!) Lateral Environmental Thinking. As part of a government initiative to better the environment by using alternative energy, the Jerusalem Municipality will install solar panels on 20 city schools in the coming years. The project will cost NIS 100 million, but the municipality will not be paying for the panels. Instead, the government will compel energy companies to pay for the rentals. Another 'Work Accident'. At least four Arabs, including a baby, were killed on Thursday afternoon in a powerful blast that ripped through home of a bomb-making terrorist. More than 25 people were wounded. As usual, Hamas blamed the deaths on the Israeli Air Force and fired a number of rockets into Israel in 'retaliation'. Hamas later admitted that it was work accident –– While Hamas terrorists were preparing an attack on Israel blew themselves up. Still Delusional. American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has maintained that democracy will overcome terrorist parties and that the democratic victory of Hamas actually was good because it proved that Hamas is not responsible (True! The bloodthirsty, terror infested population of so-called Palestinians is!). Writing in the prestigious Foreign Affairs Journal, she stated that a new Arab state within Israel's current borders must "build effective democratic institutions that can fight terrorism and extremism." (No she is not delusional, just another puppet in the anti-Israel game!) QUOTE OF THE WEEK: "I am disgusted! Up there in the Knesset it's like a Roman orgy. When I was a kid I had heroes for politicians. Now I have criminals." –– Avi Meir, a shawarma vendor in Jerusalem's busy Ben-Yehuda shopping mall. "The quality of our leadership is deteriorating and the public is tired of politics." –– Former Labor Party Knesset Member Ephraim Sneh. "There would be nothing easier than to end the terrorism from Gaza –– but we as Jews take more moral responsibility and therefore exercise more self-restraint than any other nation in the world." –– Israel's former Defense Minister, Binyamin Ben Eliezer –– Wouldn't it be more moral to end terror by defeating the enemy, liberating Jewish land from Arab occupation and saving not just Jewish lives, but Muslim ones as well? Government in Waiting for Collapse. The decision by the security cabinet to pursue the possibility of reaching a period of "calm" in Gaza shows that the Olmert government has lost the ability to make decisive moves. "The decision not to decide shows the urgent need for swift elections and the creation of a new government, that will be able to reach decisions", said MK Yuval Steinitz (Likud). Help to Terrorists Comes from Everywhere. Gaza-based terrorists for the first time have used a Russian-made Fagot guided anti-tank missile. The missile can be controlled after it is fired, and it has a maximum range of 1.5 miles. Advanced weapons brought into Gaza by sea or through smuggling tunnels, many of which are supplied from Syria and Lebanon. (No one is calling for an end to the sale of Russian weapons to Arabs!) Hamas Water Greed. The Hamas terrorists entered and seized vehicle and keys to the building, which has been the headquarters for operations funded by the European Union (EU). This gives the terrorists access to revenue for water well taxes and may also allow them to get their hands on money from the EU. JEWISH CONTRIBUTION TO HUMANITY: Mark Zuckerberg, 23, a former Harvard student shot to international fame by creating the Facebook networking site. –– Well, not exactly a "Contribution to Humanity", but something to brag about! Microsoft Opens R&D Center in Israel. Microsoft chief executive officer Steve Ballmer opened a new research and development center in Herzliya Pituach. Microsoft plans to employ 750 workers at the new center. Ballmer compared Israel with California's Silicon Valley because of the large number of startup opportunities in high technology. Anti-Semitism in Oxford. An Israeli graduate student who received a two-year research scholarship to the prestigious University of Oxford has decided to give up his scholarship for the upcoming second year due to anti-Israel attitudes and anti-Semitism he was exposed to on the campus. (It seems that nothing has changed in Great Britain since the expulsion of Jews some 718 years ago! The anti-Semitic environment in many western universities has become intolerable. Interestingly, the major instigators and perpetrators of this ugliness are non-Muslim students and members of academia! It seems that the lessons of Nazi Germany have been forgotten and the cadaver of traditional European anti-Semitism has been resurrected.) "Chicken or Egg" Schizophrenia. An Egyptian scholar, Dr. Abd-al-Rahman Reihan, claims that archaeological evidence in Dahab in the Sinai Peninsula shows that the Star of David, traditionally thought to be a Jewish symbol, is actually Muslim. Reihan claims that several incidences of the Star of David occur as a decoration in Muslim archaeological sites across the Sinai during the Fatimid/early Crusader period (969-1187). Reihan has previously claimed that the menorah (another traditional Jewish symbol) is in fact a Roman invention from the times of the Emperor Titus. NO ROOM FOR ISRAEL IN EGYPTIAN HEARTS. Maps sold in Cairo's main bookshops omit Israel, with the area comprising Israel and the occupied territories simply labelled "Palestine" in Arabic. Sixty years after its creation and 30 years after the Camp David accords paved the way for a 1979 peace treaty with Egypt, Israel exists only virtually as far as its neighbour to the west is concerned. Breaking ranks with other Arab states, Egypt was the first to recognize the state of Israel, followed by Jordan and Mauritania. The other 18 member states of the Arab League have not followed their example... "No, there are no maps with the name Israel. We follow the rest of the Arab world in this, peace treaty or not", said Ibrahim Mahmoud, who works in a Cairo bookshop... (By signing a fake peace agreement with Israel, having no intention to honour it, Egypt gained control of Sinai and has being receiving 3 billion dollars of foreign aid a year from the United States along with a degree of international respectability. Since the Camp David agreement, Egypt has done almost nothing to improve its relationship with Israel, but on the contrary plays underhanded anti-Israel games! At any time Egypt is ready to break the peace with Israel and there will then be no need to reprint the books and maps.) Steven Shamrak was born in the former Soviet Union (USSR) and participated in the Moscow Zionist "refusenik" movement and currently lives in Melbourne, Australia. He publishes internet editorial letters on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak.e@gmail.com Visit his website at www.shamrak.com |
|
TRUE FACE OF JORDAN; NOTES ON U.S. ELECTIONS; EASING TENSIONS NOT
NECESSARILY A GOOD THING
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 16, 2008. |
|
TRUE FACE OF JORDAN Jordan's bar association protested against the invitation to the US Ambassador to attend some ceremony at a courthouse. The invitation was rescinded. The head of the bar association called the US an "occupier of Iraq" (IMRA, 5/30). Jordan is called moderate, but Islamists run all the professional organizations. The allies inflicted some casualties in Iraq, but the Islamists and Saddam caused several times as many. The US therefore saved thousands of lives there. We also poured a fortune into reconstruction of a country that Saddam had let wear out before we inflicted modest damage and whose terrorists continue to wreck infrastructure. Saddam poured money into war, subversion, and palaces. Now we help defend the country, but do not rule it. It is not fair for Jordanians still to call the US an "occupier." More egregious, some Americans call it that. "MORAL VALUES" IN ISRAEL PM Olmert's chief colleagues said that their political party must revise its line-up (sack Olmert) or prepare for elections. They said that they cannot continue on under his leadership without rotting moral values. Some Members of Knesset wondered how those colleagues uphold moral values by remaining in Olmert's Cabinet while talking about moral values while he tries to remember what he did with all those cash-filled envelopes (IMRA, 5/30). They say he has expensive collections. Perhaps he just was collecting envelopes. ISRAELI PRECONCEPTION After coming in for criticism from its usual critics, the Israeli government reversed itself and now will let Gaza students of higher education out to utilize their scholarships. The diplomatic officials who made the later decision explained it as a way of giving the students something good to do for themselves and their future country other than terrorism (NY Times, 6/2). Those Israel officials assume that that higher education keeps people away from terrorism, the students would use their skill to build a state, and that such a state would not harm Israel. Experience, however, shows that since P.A. Arab aspirations are to destroy Israel, educated Muslims, especially Western-educated ones, bring their skills to the terrorist cause. Their state would be stronger in fighting Israel. Let Israeli officials study terrorism before expressing opinions about it. NOTES ON U.S. ELECTIONS My friends ask, "Whom are you voting for?" They neglect the issues, which most of the candidates hide from. For three weeks in succession, NY Times Sunday Opinion cartoons made fun of Clinton and spared Obama. Have you noticed this pattern? If he is held above criticism, perhaps we should defeat him, lest he get away with megalomania. Obama suggests running out of Iraq. His opponents could practically defeat him on that one piece of nonsense, alone, if explained carefully. They don't. They must think that Americans don't understand more than isolated sound bytes, or else that is all the candidates are capable of. They don't focus on an opponent's misconceptions thoroughly and persistently, until clear to everyone. They do fasten on violations of political correctness. Muslims assert a religious entitlement to Palestine, whereas most Jews asert Israeli security needs. Israelis are too modern to insist upon Jewish religious entitlement to the Land of Israel, but not too modern to deny the Islamic claim. This inconsistency forfeits a double propaganda advantage to the enemy. The US government states that both sides are entitled to share the land, without explaining why, and without being challenged over the injustice of that. Apparently no candidates knows that when Jordan was split off the Mandate, the Arabs got 79% of the land. Bush's proposed sharing is 83% for the Arabs, including most of the Jews' religious and historical places, and only 17% for the Jews. The candidates' support for another partition is unfair and unaware. By the way, the Arab states encompass more land than does the US. Here are some misunderstood issues. Education may determine American prosperity, but is failing. Americans think that education depends on how much money is spent on schools, but we already spend the most, while the curriculum is biased and dumbed down and the teaching methods often are proven failures. Americans think that health depends on how much is spent on medicine and by whom, but they pollute food, air, and water, eat junk, and visit doctors who don't think but prescribe drugs that cause much illness and often don't solve any. Environmental concerns have been hijacked by a confused notion of global warming, while pollution is unaddressed and Americans over-indulge. Democrats think that war is voluntary, but a new fascist ideology in religious garb is seeking world domination and opening many fronts. Westerners are confused about immigration. How do we get the workers we need, not those who absorb our resources or try to take away our culture? The falling dollar is ignored and some candidates want to pile on more debt. WAR, INC. War, Inc. is a movie about an entirely privatized US war in the Mideast. I think it could have been good satire if it showed real problems not diverted by a silly plot. Unlike the audience, I found only some of the jokes funny, others silly, and the rest I missed because the actors spoke too fast or unclearly. The audience liked the anti-Bush jokes, unfair as they were. I wonder why the movies I see about such wars do not make fun of Bush's critics. I believe in equal opportunity humor. Apparently Hollywood doesn't. EASING TENSIONS Israel has let the P.A. open three police stations in Judea-Samaria. Israel explains that this is to reduce tensions (IMRA, 6/3). "Tensions" never defined. Do such measures ease tension? Never measured, so far as I have heard. Why base policy on assumptions? Why not use sociologists to provide insights useful in making policy? The assumption is that tension between the P.A. Arabs and Israel is due to Israeli restrictions upon them, and that such tension is bad. This is not logical. The Arabs started the wars before Israel controlled the Territories. Therefore, tension preceded Israeli restrictions. Tension is generated by Islamic notions of superiority over infidels and injustice in not being in control over them. Some might call that superiority complex arrogance. Muslim leaders fan discontent. Certain restrictions may justifiably be resented. Every week and every day, however, the P.A. foments tensions, by propagandizing against Israel and the Jewish people and blaming them for every Arab problem. Easily inflammable, the Muslim Arabs are driven into terrorism. Restrictions are in self-defense. Removing them for the sake of removing restrictions may facilitate terrorism. It also pleases the State Dept., but the State Dept. is anti-Zionist, so pleasing it harms Israel. The only question is whether the restrictions are useful and reasonable. CANDIDATES WAFFLING The NY Sun has a daily column of election news briefs. It needs a companion column called "Candidates' Waffles." Sen. McCain would have some entries, but most would follow Sen. Obama's constant shifting under criticism. He shifts on the same issue day-to-day. One is reminded of the prosecuting attorney's grilling, "You told the police you were present on April 5, but you testified here that you were absent on April 5. Were you lying then or are you lying now?" Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear regularly in 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 |
|
THE COORDINATION OF EFFORT BETWEEN UNLIKELY TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS LIKE AL QAEDA AND HEZBOLLAH
Posted by Family Security Matters, June 16, 2008. |
|
This comes from CRC Open Sources and is available at
|
|
For the past several months, I have written quite a bit about the odd alliances and the seemingly unlikely coordination of effort between Sunni and Shiia in the broader Islamic jihad against the West. Those who don't fully understand the depth and scope of what the Jihadists are doing worldwide, will argue that Sunni and Shiia don't work and play well together. That may be true in a world where only Sunni and Shiia kingdoms exist. But as long as radical Islam has greater enemies to contend with –– like Israel, the U.S., and the greater West –– these two unlikely Muslim sects (and their various subsets) will coordinate efforts and generally support one another. In a book published last month by the National Intelligence University and the U.S. Army War College, Dr. Ely Karmon –– a senior research scholar at Israel's International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism –– writes: "Little is known about the Iran-Hizballah-al-Qaeda connections, but there is no doubt that several dozens or possibly hundreds of Sunni jihadi operatives are in Iran, and Ayman al-Zawahiri has hinted in the past of a possible cooperation with Tehran. In his famous letter sent to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in July 2005, Zawahiri noted that 'more than one hundred prisoners-many of whom are from the leadership who are wanted in their countries-[are] in the custody of the Iranians.' The attacks against the Shiites in Iraq could compel 'the Iranians to take counter measures,' and therefore, al-Qaeda 'and the Iranians need to refrain from harming each other at this time in which the Americans are targeting' them. The Iranians could use al-Qaeda for their own needs in the Middle East or beyond, and some al-Qaeda operatives could be impressed by a nuclear Iran and agree to cooperate." The letter Dr. Karmon is referring to is one sent from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi, which was seized during counterterrorism operations in Iraq. The letter was released July 9, 2005 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Karmon's book (actually a monograph) is entitled, Iran-Syria-Hizballah-Hamas –– A Coalition Against Nature, Why Does It Work? Contact Family Security Matters at info@familysecuritymatters.org |
|
VOTE TO SAVE JERUSALEM
Posted by Barbara Sommer, June 16, 2008. |
|
This comes from the Jerusalem Prayer Team. The Jerusalem Prayer Team, America's largest Christian coalition praying for the peace of Jerusalem, was founded by Michael Evans, the author of "Beyond Iraq: The Next Move." Contact them at www.JerusalemPrayerTeam.org and address email inquiries to jpteam@sbcglobal.net |
|
Dear Everyone, The number of participants who have taken our Save Jerusalem vote continues to grow steadily. Click here to view the latest vote count. Please encourage your friends and family to cast their votes as well to help us reach our goal of 200,000 signatures. Every person who raises a voice against the division of Jerusalem is another step forward in our mission to guard, defend and protect the Jewish people and Eretz Israel until Israel is secure, and until the Redeemer comes to Zion. The Jerusalem Prayer Team is a prayer movement of people around the world with the goal of enlisting one million people in America to pray daily and 100,000 houses of worship praying weekly for the peace of Jerusalem. It is a non-denominational organization that receives no support from the Nation of Israel. Contact Barbara Sommer by email at sommer_1_98@worldnet.at.net |
|
UPDATE ON SHMUEL BEN MIRIAM
Posted by Shoshana Lepon, June 16, 2008. |
|
Update on Shmuel ben Miriam –– Jerusalem 18-yr-old who was hit by car on Pesach. Baruch Hashem, he's now breathing on his own, talking, eating. He's in Tel HaShomer in rehabilitation. Working on moving arms and fingers. Not yet moving lower half of body. Still needs lots of davening to come out of it whole. Thanks for all your prayers & concern. Shoshana Lepon Contact Shoshana Lepon at anonymom2000@yahoo.com |
|
POLICE: LEFTISTS IN HEBRON MORE DANGEROUS THAN RIGHT-WING COUNTERPARTS
Posted by Sergio, June 16, 2008. |
|
Some people cannot live in peace until Hebron is Judenrein again,
as it was from 1948 to 1967, 19 years out of over 3500 years!
Peace Now calls for suspension of police commander who said extreme left-wing activists provoke settlers in hope of producing violent response. 'They have become an even greater threat than the anarchists,' said Commander Peled This was written by Efrat Weiss and it appeared today in
Ynet News
|
|
"The activity of some leftist organizations in Hebron is more dangerous that which is being conducted by their right-wing counterparts," a senior Shai District Police official told Ynet Monday. "Organizations such as Bnei Avraham (which is committed to 'disturbing the occupation, disrupting the segregation and apartheid regime') and Breaking the Silence are wolves in sheep's' clothing", the official said in light of the growing tensions between left and right-wing activists in the West Bank city. The head of the Israel Police's Hebron district, Commander Avshalom Peled told Ynet that "from my experience in the Hebron and Gush Etzion area, the activity on the part of the militant left can be severe and dangerous." Hebron police have recorded a drop in disturbances involving Jewish settlers over the past year and noted an improvement in the dialogue between the settler community and police. "In the past we did not have any problems with the leftist organizations, but all this changed recently," another police official said. "Their activity has become more extreme in nature, and it may result in (an eruption of violence)." Police claim that on April 25 members of Bnei Avraham and Breaking the Silence took advantage of the fact that they were permitted to tour Hebron to hold an illegal rally and provoke settlers. "The leftists antagonize the settlers in the hope that the settlers will attack them," a police official said. "The left-wing organizations have become an even greater threat than the anarchists." Peace Now: Suspend police chief The 'Peace Now' movement issued a call for the immediate suspension of Commander Peled. Movement chairman Yariv Oppenheimer sent a formal request to Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter following the Ynet report. "It would be preferable if the Hebron police focused on laying its hands on Rightist rioters rather than try and bury the shameful situation it is responsible for," the movement said. MK Zahava Gal-On (Meretz) also responded to the report. "It would seem as though the police are working for the Kahanist and fascist groups in Hebron. I call on the internal security minister to conduct an investigation into the conduct of police forces in Hebron," said Gal-On. Contact Sergio at nutella59@gmail.com You can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com |
|
WHAT IRANIAN LEADERS SAY ABOUT DOING AWAY WITH ISRAEL
Posted by Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, June 16, 2008. |
|
This was written by Joshua Teitelbaum and was published as a JCPA Jerusalem Issue Brief. |
|
A Refutation of the Campaign to Excuse
Ahmadinejad's Incitement to Genocide
SUMMARY * Over the past several years, Iranian leaders –– most prominently, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad –– have made numerous statements calling for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. While certain experts have interpreted these statements to be simple expressions of dissatisfaction with the current Israeli government and its policies, in reality, the intent behind Ahmadinejad's language and that of others is clear. * What emerges from a comprehensive analysis of what Ahmadinejad actually said –– and how it has been interpreted in Iran –– is that the Iranian president was not just calling for "regime change" in Jerusalem, but rather the actual physical destruction of the State of Israel. When Ahmadinejad punctuates his speech with "Death to Israel" (marg bar Esraiil), this is no longer open to various interpretations. * A common motif of genocide incitement is the dehumanization of the target population. The Nazi weekly Der Stürmer portrayed Jews as parasites and locusts. Ahmadinejad said in a speech on October 26, 2005: "In the Middle East, they [the global powers] have created a black and filthy microbe called the Zionist regime." * Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who succeeded Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989, has made statements about Israel similar to Ahmadinejad. On December 15, 2000, he declared on Iranian TV: "Iran's position, which was first expressed by the Imam [Khomeini] and stated several times by those responsible, is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region." * Michael Axworthy, who served as the Head of the Iran Section of Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office, notes that when the slogan "Israel must be wiped off the map" appeared "draped over missiles in military parades, that meaning was pretty clear." * There is an ample legal basis for the prosecution of Ahmadinejad in the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court for direct and public incitement to commit genocide and crimes against humanity. Click here to read the Full Report. Contact JCPA by email at jcpa@netvision.net.il |
|
U.S.-TRAINED WEAPONS EXPERT TEACHING HAMAS FORCES
Posted by Avodah, June 16, 2008. |
|
This comes from yesterday's People's Daily-China
|
|
A group of Hamas-controlled policemen appeared to be very interested while listening to a weapon expert who spent most of the time responding to their curious questions on explosives. During the whole one-hour lesson, the officers, who were of various ages and many of whom bearded, kept on asking questions and the trainer, captain Fares al-Ashi who once received training in South Carolina of the United States, took the time answering. "These information are important for the youths (the trainees)," al-Ashi said. "We give them general information about the explosives, those manufactured locally and the Israeli ones, because those people always reach the dangerous sites before we, the explosive squad, do." The lesson was part of a new training program that the Hamas police launched last month, nearly one year after the Islamic movement seized control of the security establishment in the Gaza Strip. Major Khalil Hejjo, chief of the training administration in the police, said the program was "a big achievement" made by the police which took a new shape after it became completely under Hamas' control. "In the past, a brigadier general used to run this administration in addition to 250 officer trainers, but now, seven trainers and I oversee the whole programs," Hejjo explained. The program is called "martyr Aziz Massoud course" for rehabilitating officers. "Every program should carry the name of a martyr," Hejjo said. Massoud was killed in February in an Israeli airstrike on a car alongside four members of Hamas' armed wing, Ezz el-Deen al-Qassam Brigades. "He was one of the police trainers," Hejjo added. The course is not limited to Hamas supporters and also involves200 officers "who represent all the political factions," according to Hejjo, who was a member of the police when it was under Fatah control and continued to work under Hamas. The program, which lasts for four months besides a fifth month for exams, includes physical exercises as well as lectures on human rights, civil defense and explosives. Hamas completed its Gaza takeover one year ago. As a result, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas withdrew his Fatah movement from coalition with Hamas, deposed Hamas Premier Ismail Haneya and formed a Fatah-backed cabinet based in West Bank. Hamas refused Abbas' decisions and kept ruling Gaza after making several reshuffle on the deposed government. Later, Hamas took over most of the institutions and municipal councils and replaced their directors with pro-Hamas managers. The political challenge between Hamas and Fatah make a political separation between the Gaza Strip and West Bank. However, a few days ago, Abbas implicitly gave up a condition stipulating that Hamas steps back from controlling Gaza in order to open a national dialogue. Hamas welcomed the call. Critics said that such training, in addition to taking over Palestinian National Authority's national and civil institution, tighten Hamas' grip on the impoverished territory and decrease chances of success of expected dialogue. Source: Xinhua Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com |
|
DON'T BE FOOLED BY GOOD REVIEWS
Posted by Barry Rubin, June 16, 2008. |
|
Golda Meir once said that a bad press was better than a good epitaph. In other words, pragmatic considerations must take precedence over public relations. Sometimes it seems as if contemporary Israeli governments have forgotten that concept. Yet in general, especially where it counts, this principle continues to prevail in Israel. Not so in the Arab world. There, maintaining a rhetoric of war, militancy, and refusal to compromise –– as proof of the regime's impeccable Arab nationalist and Islamic credentials –– has always been a powerful factor in governance. This method has great benefits by mobilizing popular support for dictators and a high cost because it blocks their making peace and leads them into costly foreign adventures. For rulers, the good news is that they remain perpetually behind the steering wheel; the bad news, at least for their citizens, is that the vehicle never gets anywhere good. But this is not to say that the masses are mere dupes in this process. Tempting as it is to say, dictators bad; people good, the fact is that even if the masses don't (in the words of George Orwell's classic on modern dictatorship, 1984) love the ruling Big Brother, they at least like what Big Brother says. What Big Brother, and all his helping little brothers, says, however, has changed internationally if not locally. The old script, still used in Arabic, was very macho: We'll fight forever, spill oceans of blood, and win completely in the end. The new script, available only in English, is: we're poor victims who want peace and. In tune with current world thinking, this generates much sympathy. But the resulting public relations' victories avail them not. First, let's ask: what, in material terms, has the shift in Western opinion and media coverage actually cost Israel? It's easy to say Israel has been restrained from triumphs by Western pressure as a result of this change. Yet that situation dates back to the early 1970s, before the public relations' blitz, and has more to do with geopolitics than public opinion. One can argue that there have been some costs to Israel (beneficial advantages from the European Union) and some benefits to the other side (more money to the Palestinian Authority). There's been a lot of personal discomfiture for Israelis treated as pariahs and Jews abroad dismayed by waves of hatred and misunderstanding. Yet this has amounted to relatively little material disadvantage for Israel and not much real benefit for its adversaries. After all, there's still no Palestinian state, Palestinians are more divided than ever, Hamas is isolated, there's not much pressure on Israel for concessions, the Israeli presence on the Golan Heights remains, Israel's economy thrives, Israel's relations with the major European countries are good, the international campaign against Iran's nuclear drive is as strong as can be expected, and so on. In short, the radical Arab nationalists, Islamists, Arab regimes, and Palestinian movement have squandered their public relations' victories in the West. The main reason for this is their extremist goals. They are like a bettor who wins at the gambling table but never cashes in his chips since defeat makes him more determined and success makes him over-confident. If, for example, Palestinian leaders had wanted a deal to get an independent state or Syria had preferred to get back the Golan Heights in exchange for full peace they would have succeeded. A good press and favorable Western opinion, reflected through government policies, would have helped them make a better deal. As it is, however, they are merely enabled to continue their endless struggle with a smile on their faces. A second way they have lost is by failing to be constructive. Aid given Palestinians was thrown away rather than used to build a productive stable society. The same principle applies to many Arab countries, with a partial exception for high-income, low-population Gulf Arab oil-producing states. Fickle fortune doesn't favor one forever. If you don't grab an advantage it flies away. The moving finger writes and having writ moves on, as Omar Khayyam put it. And sometimes, within a very short time, the very same finger that once praised you gives you, so to speak, the finger. Third, specific actions undermine temporary popularity. Such events as September 11, the London subway bombings, the Islamist specter, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's demagoguery turn off the Western audience. Finally, what Arab nationalists and Islamists often cite as their strongest card that time is on their side –– because of high birth rates, which also mean lower living standards, or due to Israel's impending miraculous collapse –– is among their worst mistakes. You could call it the vulture strategy, wait around in hope your adversary will die. They go on fighting and suffering –– postponing peace, progress, and prosperity –– while Israel, despite costs, prospers and its people live much better lives. Rather than being used as part of an integrated strategy to obtain the best possible deal, public relations' successes act as morale builders to keep fighters going in the belief that victory is inevitable. In short, the more sympathetic stories about suffering victim Palestinians, the stronger the impetus to continue policies ensuring Palestinians continue in that status. One reason for this malady is that most Arabs and Muslims are misled by a history often characterized by the cycle famously described by the historian Ibn Khaldoun. City-centered civilizations grown rich and decadent were destroyed by warlike tribes who reveled in battle. Sheep-like peasants were preyed on by nomadic warriors who raided them like wolves, killing and pillaging. This was before, however, developed societies built technology, organization, discipline, and identity which gave them real military superiority beyond the strong right arm of individual hero warriors who courted death in battle. Now would-be conquerors sacrifice all for a future that'll never come. A strategy based on loving death and hating life reaps the commensurate result. Jews know well from history that it is wrong to say "sticks and stones" are physically damaging while "words will never hurt me." Experience has shown that one day, blood libel; next day, pogrom. Yet Golda Meir was in fact right: progress trumps propaganda; quality triumphs over quantity; building beats destroying; and pragmatism is superior to ideologically-based wishful thinking. Having a nice scrapbook of press clippings doesn't equal victory. Indeed, it can spell defeat. 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 |
|
REACTIONS TO THE PC(USA)'S REVISED ANTISEMITISM DOCUMENT
Posted by A Recovering Presbyterian, June 15, 2008. |
|
EDITOR'S NOTE: BACKGROUND The May document can be found at https://www.presbyweb.com/2008/News. Scroll down to May2008Statement.pdf to view/download it. The June document is also available at https://www.presbyweb.com/2008/News. Scroll down to June2008Statement.pdf to view/download it. |
|
A variety of people have responded to the recent revision of the document produced by the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s Office of Interfaith Relations. I would like to highlight a couple of these responses. First, I must point out that it is commonplace among churches embracing anti-Israel activism to emphasize Jewish support for their actions and statements. Usually examples of fringe groups and individuals are employed for this purpose. But the fact remains that broad-based Jewish groups have all criticized the antisemitic overtones present in this church sponsored activism. The PC(USA)'s May document acknowledged and rejected this antisemitic element; their June document did not. This is not a matter of support for Israel or Palestine –– contrary to what some may assert; it is not a matter of taking sides in the conflict; it is not a matter of trying to simplify a very complex situation. Instead, the important feature is whether or not mainline US denominations are saying antisemitism is OK with them. The members of these denominations need to make a decision –– whether or not they will tolerate their church involvement in the propagation of hate. 1. The President of the Union for Reform Judaism, the Executive Vice President of United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, and the Executive Vice President of the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation released a letter to Rev. Dr. Clifton Kirkpatrick. Among other things they indicated: "Candor compels us to respond immediately and clearly to the "expanded" and "revised" publication of "Vigilance against Anti-Jewish Ideas and Bias," and to tell you as plainly as we know how that the new statement marks a new low-point in Presbyterian-Jewish relations." They went on to say: "The revised statement, which is currently prominently displayed on your website, does more to excuse anti-Semitism and foster anti-Jewish motifs then it does to dispel them." And "Friends, or even dialogue partners, do not engage in actions that can so easily and plausibly be seen as "bait and switch" tactics."" 2. Another communication was issued jointly by the American Jewish Committee; American Jewish Congress; Anti-Defamation League; B'nai B'rith International; Central Conference of American Rabbis; Hadassah: The Women's Zionist Organization Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Jewish Reconstructionist Federation; The Rabbinical Assembly; United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism; Union for Reform Judaism; Women's League for Conservative Judaism; and the Women of Reform Judaism. ""We are deeply distressed by the revisions made to the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s recent statement calling for "Vigilance against anti-Jewish ideas and bias."3. A variety of Presbyterians have also responded negatively to this tactic –– which is troubling on many levels. I lack the space to reproduce these here, but I think their concerns are well expressed in this letter to Presbyweb written by Rev. John Wimberly: The decision by the PCUSA to release a revised statement on Anti-Semitism, totally undermining the previous statement, is the most disappointing development in interfaith relations in my 34 years of ministry. I simply don't know how we can release a document, receive high praise from the Jewish community, withdraw it and release a new document which profoundly angers the Jewish community and all of us who have spent a lifetime trying to build trust between Presbyterians and the Jewish community. This is beyond bad process. This is bad ministry. Who will trust our words in the future? Why should they? Contact A recovering Presbyterian at wspotts@zoominternet.net |
|
HOW DID WE LET IT COME TO THIS?
Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, June 15, 2008. |
|
I received a phone call this morning from a friend. Ron wanted me to listen to Chabad's Jewish radio program in town, where the plight of Sderot's children would be discussed...the town in the Negev that's under constant bombardment by Arabs years after Israel's total withdrawal from adjacent Gaza. The plan evidently involves moving the kids elsewhere, out of harm's way. Like many other Diaspora Jews, I'm also deeply concerned about the resurrected Jewish State. But Israel itself has been making serious blunders over the last few decades –– and, especially, the past several years –– which greatly exacerbates its situation. Something about this rubs the wrong way... big time. I know, it's easy for me to be brave when it's not my own town in Florida being targeted. But it goes far beyond this... The Arabs have always planned to make life so unbearable for Jews in Israel that they'd want to abandon the Zionist dream. When a pressured Prime Minister/ General Ariel Sharon came up with his controversial unilateral withdrawal plan for Israel from Gaza a few years back, many of us had mixed feelings. One of our main fears was that it would just bring Arab terror that much closer to Israel proper, while caving into yet another step in the Arabs' post-'67 War destruction-in-phases plans for Zion. We instinctively knew that Arabs would not take advantage of this to begin a state-building process for their 22nd state and second, not first, within the original 1920 borders of the Mandate of Palestine (Jordan created from almost 80%of this back in 1922). Yet, we hoped we would be proven wrong. And, after all, David Ben-Gurion himself looked to Israel's own Negev Desert as a major area for a growing Jewish population, not Gaza –– despite the latter being used as an invasion route to attack Jews from since the days of the Pharaohs. Sad to say, the Arab leopard does not change its spots, and the whole area –– despite scores of millions of non-Arab Kurds, Berbers, Copts, Jews, black Africans, and so forth –– is still regarded as "purely Arab patrimony." Episodes such as the Gaza withdrawal only confirm the success of the overall Arab game plan for the region. The Arabs' ANFAL campaign against Kurds in Iraq and genocide against black Africans in the Sudan are just a few of many other examples. So, back to Sderot... I'm all for building strong defenses and shelters to try to keep the town's citizens as safe as possible from Arab mortars, rockets, and such. But evacuating Jews in Israel proper because of Arab terror is a line which I believe will lead us down a very dangerous slippery slope. Today Sderot, tomorrow Ashkelon, etc. and so forth as Arab missiles gain in range and power. Jews should not be the ones having to evacuate... Imagine, as Presidential hopeful John McCain, has said himself, that it was an American border town in Arizona, Texas, or elsewhere being subjected to this terror. Would the world expect an America which dwarfs Israel to evacuate its own land, or would it expect the aggressors to halt their destructive, murderous behavior? Certainly Mexico has its grievances with America...McCain and President Bush's home states were once part of Mexico. Now, what do you think we –– or any other nation –– would do (have done) under such circumstances? Okay? So now here's the plan... Since Prime Minister Olmert's crew lacks the backbone (and a few other analogous body parts) to spell it out and carry it through (letting the Arabs' good buddies in the American State Department dictate most of Israeli policy instead), let me propose that a major, well-advertised, televised news conference be held to which many of the world's leading media and diplomats will be invited. It will be broadcast live all over the world, carried by radio too, in many different languages, will explain much of what I have already covered above, and will be delivered by a handsome orator with the talent of the late Abba Eban. Yep, the John F. Kennedy factor won't be ignored either. After this general overview of the situation Israel faces, the following will next be stated... My friends...Please understand that Israel would love nothing more than to be able to live in a true, mutually respectful, peace with our Arab neighbors. Unfortunately, the problem has never been how big Israel is, but that Israel is. For this problem, there is no compromise solution, and poll after poll conducted amongst Arabs has shown this to still be the case. Continuous unilateral Israeli concessions only convince Arabs of Israel's weakness and the success of their own long term strategy for Israel's demise. Gerald A. Honigman, a Florida educator, has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in both the print media and on websites. Contact him at honigman6@msn.com or go to his website: http://geraldahonigman.com/blog.php |
|
TAKING THE SILK ROUTE BACK HOME
Posted by Michael Freund, June 15, 2008. |
|
This was written by Anshel Pfeffer and it appeared in
Haaretz
|
|
Jin Jin and Nina Wang are students in Hebrew University's preparatory program. They will soon commence their BA studies, but they already have long-term dreams. Jin wants to eventually serve as a diplomat in the Foreign Ministry. Wang hopes to use her diverse knowledge of languages to represent Israeli companies in China. The two women belong to one of the smallest Jewish communities in Israel –– immigrants from Kaifeng, China –– which numbers just 10 souls. Jin, 22, and Wang, 21, arrived in Israel at the beginning of 2006, together with two other friends from Kaifeng on tourist visas. They received temporary resident status after they begun conversion studies and received citizenship after undergoing a conversion ceremony in a rabbinical court. Wang explains that as children their parents and grandparents "told us we are Jews and that one day we'd return to our land." Jin Jin boasts, "We have a family burial plot that goes back dozens of generations, and we have genealogy books showing our connection with earlier generations of Jews."
Kaifeng Jews do not object to undergoing a "giyur l'chumra" –– a conversion ceremony done for the sake of removing any doubt, in contrast to other groups such as Ethiopian Jews. According to them, their families intermarried with local Chinese over time, and didn't maintain Jewish traditions save for abstaining from pig meat, the one trait that differentiated them from their neighbors. Most researchers, including former skeptics, now concur the community descends from Jewish traders who came to Kaifeng, the capital of the Chinese empire from 960 to 1127, and probably other cities. Evidence as to when they arrived ranges from the late Second Temple period to the seventh century. If they disagree on the timing of the Jews' arrival, scholars are almost certain they came as traders via the Silk Route. At some stage, according to community tradition, the emperor bestowed upon them Chinese family names, which they bear with pride to this day. Civil wars and natural disasters tragically decimated the community in the mid-19th century, when its synagogue was said to be destroyed. Communal life has been virtually non-existent during the past 70 years. An estimated 600-1,000 people who identify themselves as Jewish descendants now reside in Kaifeng. The town's Jews reconnected with mainstream Jewry thanks to visits by Jewish tourists, who brought learning materials and religious objects to local Jews. Jin's uncle Shlomo Jin went to the Israeli embassy in Beijing eight years ago seeking to immigrate to Israel. Embassy officials didn't want to hear about it, so he eventually came to Israel with his family via a European country. Shavei Israel, an organization which reaches out to lost Jewish communities, helped community members get accepted into a conversion program. The girls describe their year in the conversion institute as stressful. "We felt we needed to learn because that's what we lacked," says Wang. In contrast to other conversion candidates, they didn't feel insulted by being required to strictly observe Jewish commandments. Michael Freund, the head of Shavei Israel, estimates the potential number of immigrants from Kaifeng to be no more than a few hundred. However, he described the community members as "people with very high motivation and we need to help them." Neither the Israeli government nor the Jewish Agency currently encourages the immigration or conversion of Kaifeng Jews, but Jin Jin and Nina Wang believe that within a generation a proper community of Jewish Chinese immigrants will be established in Israel.
Michael Freund is the head of Shavei Israel and a columnist for the
Jerusalem Post.
|
|
PALLYWOOD –– THE AL DURA HOAX
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 15, 2008. |
|
This was written by Jonathan Rosenblum and it comes from the Aish
website:
|
|
Charles Enderlin is not going quietly into the night. On May 23 a French appeals court dismissed the libel suit he and France2 brought against media critic Phillippe Karsenty, arising out of the latter's charge that Enderlin and France2 had duped the French public with their September 30, 2000 broadcast of the "death of Muhammed al-Dura" at Netzarim Junction. In his voice-over that night, Enderlin, who was not at Netzarim Junction during the events in question, unambiguously claimed that the boy in the film clip had been killed by Israeli fire that deliberately targeted him. With the dismissal of his suit, Enderlin joined Oscar Wilde and Alger Hiss in the pantheon of those who brought libel suits and ended up destroying their own reputations. He has announced, however, that he will appeal to the French Supreme Court. And his friends in the French journalistic community are circulating a petition claiming that he is the victim of insane conspiracy theorists. My friend Larry Derfner apparently shares that view. He wrote in the Jerusalem Post on May 28 that anyone who believes that France 2's broadcast was a hoax belongs in an asylum along with 9/11 deniers. According to Derfner, Karsenty, Boston University history professor Richard Landes, and Luc Rosenzweig, former editor-in-chief of Le Monde, are victims of Jewish paranoia. Larry admits that every word Enderlin said in his voice-over was false: There is no evidence that the boy and his father were targets of Israeli fire. Nor was he killed by Israeli fire. Yet, he writes, evidence of a journalistic hoax does not amount to .001 percent of the evidence that Shimon Peres masterminded the Rabin assassination. At most, Karsenty, Landes, et al. have gathered a few of the "oddities" favored by wacked-out conspiracy theorists. Enderlin distributed the France 2 clip free of charge, and it was subsequently broadcast thousands of times. The image of the terrified boy cowering behind his father quickly assumed iconic status. It featured prominently in mass anti-Israel demonstrations in Europe, where it was juxtaposed to the image of the Jewish boy with his hands raised in the Warsaw ghetto. To heighten its impact, Palestinian TV cropped into the France 2-clip pictures of an Israeli soldier firing. The image of "Muhammed al-Dura" beckoning other Palestinian children to join him as martyrs in paradise features prominently in the Palestinian death cult. His name was invoked by the Ramallah mob that disemboweled two Israeli reservists, in Osama bin Laden's 9/11 video, and in that of Daniel Pearl's beheading. For the Palestinians, media is a pure propaganda tool. One would have thought that those who doggedly exposed one falsehood after another and provoked Enderlin and France 2 into their ill-fated libel suit are deserving of praise, not ridicule. At the very least, we would expect their accusers to show some minimal familiarity with the evidence they have amassed and to make some attempt to refute it. Let's consider some of the "oddities" that are firmly established. Palestinians regularly fake media images and lie shamelessly. Recall Hamas legislators meeting by candlelight with the curtains drawn in what turned out to be the middle of the day, or the 5,000 Palestinians reportedly massacred in Jenin, or the family of eight supposedly killed by Israeli fire on Gaza Beach, who turned out to have stepped on Hamas-laid mines. Professor Landes coined the name Pallywood for these Palestinian media hoaxes, and documents a slew of them at his Web site Second Draft. For the Palestinians, media is a pure propaganda tool. Thus Riccardo Cristiano of Italian national TV felt compelled to compose a craven letter to the Palestinian Authority stating that his station would never have broadcast the Ramallah lynch because it fully understands the rules of reporting from the PA. From the general to the particular. The sole footage of "Muhammed al-Dura's death" was that of Palestinian cameraman Talul Abu-Rahmeh working for France 2. Abu-Rahmeh is a liar. On October 3, 2000, he testified under oath to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights that there had been 45 minutes of sustained Israeli fire directed at the man and boy. As an experienced war reporter, he could verify that they could have only been hit by Israeli fire. Abu-Rahmeh claimed to have filmed 27 minutes of the fusillade. Later he told German documentary filmmaker Esther Schapira that he had filmed six minutes. We now know that the boy could have only been hit by Palestinian fire. The story of a 45-minute fusillade was on its face laughable: Had Israeli soldiers wanted to kill Palestinians, they had dozens of rioters immediately in front of the Israeli stockade from which to choose. Moreover, Abu-Rahmeh's entire footage of the man and boy consisted of 58 seconds comprised of six spliced scenes. The rest of his 27 minutes of footage –– only 18 minutes of which France2 produced when ordered to do so by the French appeals court –– consists of obviously staged scenes, according to three veteran French journalists who viewed it. The "al-Dura" footage was shot in the same area that Abu-Rahmeh and other Palestinian cameramen spent the day shooting such staged scenes. Abu-Rahmeh once declared, "I went into journalism to carry on the fight for my people," and was certainly not above employing his camera for a bit of deception. A Reuters clip from the day shows him filming another staged scene involving a Molotov cocktail. That scene was inexplicably omitted from the rushes produced in the French court. Whether Charles Enderlin knew from the first that his voice-over was false is unclear. That he lies is certain. He drew for gullible journalists a false map of Netzarim Junction, which wrongly placed the Israeli position in a direct line of fire to the man and the boy. Worse yet, he repeatedly claimed that he had edited out the last three seconds of the "al-Dura" footage because the boy's death throes were too painful to watch. Enderlin drew twitters of laughter in the French courtroom when he offered that perhaps the crowd was anticipating the boy's death. There were no such death throes. In those last three seconds, the boy lifts his head, peeks out from under his arm (with which he is shielding his eyes) prior to resuming a prone position –– albeit with his leg still held aloft. A nearby mob chants, "the boy is dead, the boy is dead," before he even lies prone the first time. Enderlin drew twitters of laughter in the French courtroom when he offered that perhaps the crowd was anticipating the boy's death. Not only is there no dead boy on the film. There is no sign of blood or wounds of any kind. In other footage from the scene, civilians are seen passing by the crouching man and boy –– some running, some strolling but all apparently oblivious to any rifle fire. (See Nidra Poller, "Myth, Fact, and the al-Dura Affair," Commentary, Sept. 2005). Over the years, more holes have developed in the al-Dura story. Phillipe Karsenty revealed that Jamal al-Dura had been treated many years earlier in an Israeli hospital for the same wounds later shown to journalists as corroboration. And Sami el-Soudi, a Palestinian journalist working for Metulla News Agency, found records of a boy named Muhammed al-Dura admitted to a Gaza hospital four hours before the filming at Netzarim Junction. As his original tale unraveled, Enderlin adopted a fallback position: Even if his voice-over was totally wrong, it still reflects the "reality" of the Israeli occupation: Israelis killing Palestinian children. That too appears to be Derfner's position: Nothing must be allowed to absolve Israel of guilt for the occupation. The al-Dura affair, it turns out, was not just about Israeli culpability, but about the very concept of Truth itself. Fortunately, this time the good guys won. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
AN INTERVIEW WITH GEORGE W BUSH
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 15, 2008. |
|
The interview appeared on The Observer, The Guardian
|
|
Iran "We need more sanctions. The next step is for the Europeans and the United States and Russia and China to understand that diplomacy only works if there are consequences. It is the international issue that faces us all. If the people in the Middle East do not think that the United States and Europe, for example, are going to work to provide security, they will find ways to secure themselves. And what the Middle East does not need is a nuclear arms race. It does not need the instability that comes from an innate fear that the West is not strong enough or willing enough to take on the problem. When you go to the Middle East and you sit in my seat and listen, yes, there's concern about the Palestinian state. But the dialogue has shifted dramatically from 'solve the Palestinian state and you've solved the problems in the Middle East' to, now, 'solve the Iranian issue and you solve the problems in the Middle East'. I have made it clear that it's difficult for the United States to resolve an issue in a one-on-one situation with people like Ahmadinejad. The only way to achieve consequences through diplomacy is for there to be a universal application –– in this case, of sanctions. Unilateral sanctions do not work." Iraq "We didn't realise, nor did anyone else, that Saddam Hussein felt like he needed to play like he had weapons of mass destruction. We thought for certain there were WMDs. That having been said, I still strongly defend the decision. The world is better off without Saddam in power. I feel a sense of pain for those who were tortured by Saddam, by the parents who watched their daughters raped by Saddam, by those innocent civilians who have been killed by inadvertent allied action, by those who have been bombed by suicide bombers. I feel a sense of pain for death. I feel a sense of pain for the families of our troops. And a responsibility to make sure they understand the sacrifice won't go in vain. They want to know whether or not the President, if he believes it was necessary, whether he is going to see this thing through. Nothing is worse than a politician making decisions based on the latest poll when people's lives are at stake. I think the Iraqi people –– yes, some have suffered, no question. But they're living in a free society. Do they like the fact that violence is still there? No. But I do know that life is improving. I do know they live under a government they elected. There's still a lot of work to be done, don't get me wrong. But freedom trumps tyranny every time." Tony Blair "The relationship with Tony Blair, first of all, is a relationship forged by fire. I have this idealistic streak and so does Blair. But we also understand that this idealism is a practical response to the world. He understands, like I understand, this is an ideological struggle. These [terror] acts are not isolated acts of lawlessness. We're in a war. A lot of people hoped this wasn't a war –– they just kind of dismiss it as, oh, there's some irritated guys making some moves. We viewed it as an ideological struggle that requires response through good intelligence, sometimes military action –– obviously, sometimes law-enforcement –– all aiming to dismantle cells and protect our people. But that ultimately freedom has to defeat the ideology of hate. It's convenient for the western press to use words like 'warmonger' or 'religious zealot' or 'poodle'. These are just words that people toss around foolishly. They retreat to the convenient rather than trying to probe the depths of a relationship or the depths of somebody's feelings on the basis of philosophy." The oil crisis "There is no magic wand. It took us a while to get to where we are. It's going to take us a while to get out of it. And the truth of the matter is that there's either got to be more supply or less demand. And demand doesn't decline overnight. During my trips to the Middle East, I talked to King Abdullah about increasing the supply of oil, on the theory that if you harm your consumers with high prices they will find other ways to power their economies –– and that he should not want to see the kind of worldwide contraction as a result of consumers spending money on energy that ends up overseas, as opposed to spending money on opportunities in their respective economies. So I think people, if they take a sober look at the world's supply, there's just not a lot, relative to demand. But if I might repeat, the solution to the price of hydrocarbons is either more hydrocarbons or less usage of hydrocarbons. What people don't understand is that hydrocarbons are necessary as we transition to a new era, based upon new technologies. New technologies don't happen overnight." Europe "We have gone beyond the Iraq period. Democracy is succeeding there. We're beginning to see progress. And there are a lot of issues that we're focused on that send a signal that co-operation is necessary to change the conditions of the world for the better –– co-operation on Aids, co-operation on malaria, co-operation on trade hopefully, discussion about climate change, co-operation in Afghanistan. The agenda is varied and it's profound. Europe used to be inward-looking right after World War Two –– necessarily so, to rebuild. America helped. Now we can be outward-looking as we help others. I'm a believer that liberty is transformative –– the power of liberty is universal, that moral relativism must be rejected and that we've got to have confidence in liberty to help others so that we are more secure ourselves." Legacy "First, I'm not going to be around to see it. There's no such thing as objective, short-term history. It takes a while to be able to have enough time to look back to see why decisions were made and what their consequences were. I'd hope it'd be of somebody who would use the influence of the United States to help transform societies by working on disease and hunger and freedom. And the liberation of 50 million people from the clutches of barbaric regimes is noteworthy, at a minimum. You've got to have a set of beliefs that are the foundation for your very being. Otherwise, these currents and tides, and 24-hour news, and politics will kind of leave you adrift. And I tell people that when I get home, I'm going to look in the mirror and say I didn't sacrifice my core beliefs to satisfy critics or pundits. And when I talk about freedom, it's not just freedom from tyranny; it's freedom from HIV/Aids, freedom from malaria, freedom from hunger. For two reasons. One, it's in our national interests that we defeat hopelessness. The only way a suicide bomber can recruit is when he finds somebody hopeless. And secondly, it's in our moral interests. A nation is a better nation when it feeds the hungry and takes care of the diseased." After the White House "I'm going to think about writing a book. I'm going to build a presidential library with a 'freedom institute' ... not, you know, like some headquarters for the Republican party, but aimed at promoting the universal values that need to be defended. I'm very worried about isolationism and protectionism." Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
BRITAIN IS A HOTBED OF RADICAL ANTI-ISRAELI SENTIMENT
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 15, 2008. |
|
This was written by Ron Prosor and it comes from the Aish website:
|
|
Throughout its modern history, Britain has prided itself on its liberal society, which cherishes human rights and values civil liberties. That pride was well founded, both in the international arena, when Britain stood alone in Europe facing the dark forces of the Third Reich, and in the domestic field, when Britain led the way in establishing a national health service, granting women the right to vote and protecting the basic social rights of the working class. During a previous posting to Britain, I developed a keen admiration of this record, and of the core British values of fairness, decency and common sense. Since returning to these shores as Israel's ambassador last November, however, I have been dismayed to find that, as far as Israel is concerned, these values are under threat. Fairness is all too frequently absent in a debate that has been hijacked by extremists. Israel faces an intensified campaign of delegitimisation, demonisation and double standards. Britain has become a hotbed for radical anti-Israeli views and a haven for disingenuous calls for a "one-state solution", a euphemistic name for a movement advocating Israel's destruction. Those who propagate this notion distort Israel's past while categorically denying Israel's right to exist as a liberal Jewish-democratic state. No other country in the world is constantly forced to justify its own existence. At the end of last month, members of the University and College Union (UCU) passed a motion that in effect called for a boycott of the Israeli academia. The concept of an academic boycott is a ludicrous oxymoron, undermining the democratic principles of free speech and free debate. Academics, who are supposedly society's guardians of knowledge, objectivity and informed debate, have seen their union held hostage by radical factions, armed with political agendas and personal interests. British academia has built its reputation on freedom of expression and the pluralistic exchange of ideas. Alarmingly, these values are under threat in an institution that should be safeguarding them. The boycott campaign, which has been gathering force since 2002, is a license to harass, humiliate and victimise purely on grounds of nationality. In recent years, cases of discrimination have included two Israeli academics being ousted from the editorial board of a journal and an Israeli postgraduate who was refused doctoral supervision because he had served in the Israeli army. Over-simplifications, half-truths and lies have been swallowed as reality and disseminated as truth. Israel has been cast as a pantomime villain. A climate of hatred is fomented on campuses. The complexities of the situation are overlooked, as are the responsibilities of other actors in the region. The pattern is exacerbated when coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is routinely tainted with bias and a surprising lack of context. Double standards are rife. Israel's military reaction to the attacks it faces is given in-depth, microscopic coverage. Yet the attacks to which Israel is responding are often ignored. Terror attacks, ambushes, suicide bombings, the constant barrage of rockets being fired on Israeli citizens are frequently disregarded. The average British citizen is painfully unaware that, since Hamas seized control of Gaza last year, 1,400 rockets and 1,500 mortar bombs have landed on Israeli soil. No government in the world would tolerate such a sustained attack without taking action. Israel is a democracy under fire, but when this context is neglected, it clears a path for the unhealthy, unacceptable demonisation of Israel. While Israel faces many challenges, it is still the only functioning democracy in the region, and the only state in the area that offers minorities full civil equality and freedom of speech.One of my greatest sources of pride is the open discourse conducted within my country. Critical debate thrives and Israelis scrutinise every aspect of our policies. We are not afraid of criticism. I am concerned, however, that in Britain the most extreme elements of the debate have been allowed to hijack the mainstream. Those who share the values on which British democracy is built must say "no" –– no to the delegitimisation of Israel, no to the demonisation of Israel and no to the double standards to which Israel is subjected. I implore the British public to prevent the radical fringe from monopolising British-Israeli discourse. It is vital that British values of fair play and even-handedness are brought to the debate. The time has come for the silent majority to speak up and say "yes"; yes to context, yes to democracy and yes to an understanding of the challenges Israel faces as a democracy under fire. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
INBAL HOTEL APOLOGIZES FOR FLYING PLO FLAG
Posted by Hillel Fendel, June 15, 2008. |
|
In response to dozens of letters of complaint, the manager of Jerusalem's Inbal Hotel says he feels he had no choice, but he's sorry for flying the flag of the Palestinian Liberation Organization-Palestinian Authority last month. The flag was flown for two days at the end of May, when the hotel hosted the International Security Forum, chaired by Public Security Minister Avi Dichter of Kadima. Government representatives from various countries, as well as from the Palestinian Authority, took part, and flags of each participating country –– or "political entity," in the case of the PA –– waved proudly in the breeze of the hotel. News of the enemy flag adorning the popular Jerusalem hotel spread quickly after Arutz-7 blogger Yisrael Medad published a letter by Yonatan Adler informing of the Inbal-PLO flag display. Various grassroots organizations quickly took up the gauntlet, and letters by citizens expressing extreme concern began arriving at the Inbal Hotel. By last week, Inbal's General Manager Rodney Sanders had answered at least a few of them. His first letters expressed regret that the letter-writers were offended, but by the end of last week, at least one writer received a straight-out apology. Sanders wrote, "I, too, felt uncomfortable when asked, even by the Israeli government, to fly the colors of the Palestinian Authority at the hotel... We were instructed by the Israel Ministry of Public Security and the organizing committee to fly the flags of all those participating in the conference, including that of the Palestinian Authority." Sanders explained that Minister Dichter "chose the Inbal Jerusalem Hotel to be the venue for the International Security Forum, a conference on 'Challenges to Homeland Security,' of which MK Avi Dicter was the chairman. US Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertkoff and a dozen other internal security ministers from Europe and beyond were invited and Minister Dicter also invited the Palestinian Minister of Interior." "While not meaning to add to anybody's distress," Sanders continued, "I think it important for me to mention that other prominent hotels are often asked by the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs to host Israel-Palestinian negotiating sessions. Sometimes this also involves flags." Apology "I would like to apologize for placing the flag on the building," Sanders then wrote, adding, "I have now since learnt how sensitive this issue is to the feelings of our nation and our people, but I believe I had no choice but to follow the request of the Ministry." Response Susie Dym, spokesperson of the Cities of Israel grassroots organization, commented afterwards, "Our activists feel that the people of the Inbal Hotel must be proud Israelis with a strong backbone. If the manager of the hotel had acted so, Minister Dichter of Kadima would have learned how to straighten the national back, and the peace negotiations would have gained greatly from this. We will not respect a hotel that does not know how to respect itself and its country." Some activists say the campaign should be pursued by faxing protests to Minister Dichter, at 02 (9722, from outside Israel) 542-8039. Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor at Arutz-Sheva (www.israelnationalnews.com). |
|
WE GAVE "PEACE A CHANCE," AND IT FAILED
Posted by Batya Medad, June 14, 2008. |
|
Making a mistake once is normal; twice isn't, and multiple times a sign of serious mental illness. "Any man is liable to err, only a fool persists in error."
The continuation of the "Peace Process" is proof of the foolishness of the masses, the media the politicians. For decades Israel has been lusting for "peace." It has brought is war, terror and lost us of the respect and fear of our enemies. Peace comes from strength, when our enemies know that if they touch us they will be destroyed. The "do anything for peace" philosophy just encourages our enemies to attack, terrorize us, because then they know that we will do anything to stop them but fight. I am disappointed and frustrated that I don't see a sign of any politicians or political party here in Israel telling people the truth, clearly. And even more upsetting, those who may have policies which are realistic have no chance of getting elected. They don't know how to campaign. They don't understand politics and human nature. Being right isn't enough to get elected. Politics is a science; there are known, tried and true techniques.
G-d willing...
Batya Medad lives in Shiloh.
She can be reached by email at
Shilohmuse@yahoo.com or visit her website. This essay is archived at
http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/2008/06/we-gave-peace-chance-and-it-failed.html
|
|
SHARI'A (ISLAMIC LAW) NO INTEREST LOANS AND OTHER FALLACIES
Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, June14, 2008. |
|
This is redacted from Editors at Family Security Matters |
|
There has been much talk about Shari'a-compliant finance (SCF) in recent months, but many Americans are still in the dark about exactly what it is and what it portends for the American economy and the freedoms Americans enjoy. This may be why the judge in the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas last fall, declared a mistrial and five of six defendants face a retrial (one was found not guilty of most of the charges against him). Terror expert Douglas Farah surmised at the time that part of the reason might have been because "perhaps the prosecution tried to cram too much information in with a group of jurors largely unfamiliar with anything to do with the case." Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism had a heated exchange with Alan Colmes of Fox News about whether the mainstream news media had even managed to get the story right. SCF is a part of Shari'a law (also known as Islamic law), and dates back to the 9th Century. Shari'a law encompasses every facet of one's life, and those who seek to impose it upon Muslims –– and the world –– look to regulate everything from aspects of religious and social customs to political and military responsibilities. Shari'a law is, in fact, the law in countries like Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Iran. The Taliban also recognizes Shari'a law, and subjected all of Afghanistan to it before U.S. forces entered that country after 9/11. Earlier this year, Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury faced a firestorm after he suggested in a BBC interview that the adoption of Shari'a law in Britain "seems unavoidable." As a matter of fact, certain conditions of Sharia are already recognized in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system." While his seemingly willing acceptance of this might shock, UK Muslims on welfare are eligible to receive extra benefits if they have more than one wife –– even though polygamy is considered illegal under British law. In essence, the Archbishop was correct when he said "certain conditions" of said Shari'a law are already recognized in today's British society! Here is a partial listing of the effects of Shari'a law:
Under SCF provisions, profits must not benefit from anything considered haram (forbidden) in Islam such as gambling, alcohol, entertainment, pork products, etc. As such, Western financial institutions wishing to obtain some of the billions of petrodollars from the Middle East are offering services that meet these requirements. Still, not all profits will meet these stringent constraints and so to "cleanse" or "purify" them, they are donated to Islamic charities. Charity sounds well and good until you stop to think that some of these charities could support Islamic Jihad. In fact, the three largest Shari'a-compliant charities in the United States were closed down by the government for funding terrorist organizations: the aforementioned Holy Land Foundation, the Benevolence International Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation. How many Americans would approve of SCF if they knew its full implications? Deroy Murdock makes an apt comparison: Turn your clock back 70 years. Imagine that Wall Street banks and brokerage houses sold Nuremberg-compliant bonds and stock funds in 1938. American Nazi sympathizers bought financial instruments certified by Berlin-based advisors as free of "Jewish profits" from, say, Salomon Brothers and Bloomingdale's. In turn, a percentage of such funds' gains underwrote pro-Nazi charities, like the German-American Bund, and similar organizations in the Fatherland, like the Hitler Youth. By investing in SCF schemes, Western financial institutions not only give Shari'a law credence but also ultimately aid Islamists in their attempt to use our own financial system against us. As it is, the West is subject to the ups and downs in the Middle Eastern oil industry. Could SCF be the next sub-prime crisis in the making? Think about it: the more money that is invested in the Middle East, the greater ability for the Middle East to pipe the tune the West dances to. Make no mistake. So-called "Sharia-compliant financing" is neither about religion nor about God. It is about Islamist control and collectivization of Muslims against "the West" and free markets. Transnational Islamist movements of Muslim theocrats seek SCF systems as nothing more than a ruse. Islamist theocrats exploit Western deference to religious freedom in order to lay the foundations of economic systems which feign religion in order to strangulate the economic freedoms of Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America and hosts the Israel Commentary website (http://www.israel-commentary.org). |
|
PALESTINIAN/ARAB REFUGEES –– THE TRUTH (WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY?)
Posted by Yoram Ettinger, June 14, 2008. |
|
This Cloakroom is based on data reported by Dr. Yuval Arnon-Ohana, a top Israeli expert on the Palestinian issue (HaUmma Quarterly #141 and 142, autumn and winter 2000) and Prof. Efraim Karsh, Head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College, University of London (Commentary Magazine, May 2008). |
|
While the surrounding Arab countries –– assisted by Palestinian Arabs –– invaded the newly established Jewish State: 1. The British Mandate urged Arabs and Jews (November 30, 1947-May 14, 1948, before the outbreak of the war) to evacuate small mixed towns, where they constituted a minority. Arabs complied, while Jews defied. Consequently, Alan Cunningham, the British High Commissioner, stated: "Arabs are leaving the country with their families in considerable numbers, and there is an exodus from the mixed towns to the rural Arab centers...The panic of the Arab middle class persists and there is a steady exodus of those who can afford to leave the country (December 1947, five months before the 1948/9 War)." The misrepresentation of the Palestinian-Arab refugee phenomenon –– just like Abu Mazen's Palestinian hate education –– constitutes the most authentic reflection of the Palestinian/Arab Vision. It is intended to de-legitimize and de-humanize the Jewish State, while legitimizing the "Claim of Return" as a means to destroy Israel. The misrepresentation of the Palestinian-Arab refugee phenomenon is much more significant than the seemingly-moderate Arab/Palestinian exchanges with Israeli and Western policy-makers and public-opinion molders. 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.
Previous issues are at
|
|
NOW I'VE HEARD EVERYTHING
Posted by Phyllis Chesler, June 14, 2008. |
|
For years now I have maintained that the hottest and most important war is the war of ideas or rather the propaganda war unleashed by ideologues in both the East and the West. The Arab and Islamist world is canny, strategic, and clever; they are also unbelievably bold liars. (Remember the Al Dura Affaire and the alleged massacre in Jenin). The politically correct West falls for the lies and treats them as sacred political truth. Here are some recent examples of how the West is actively and foolishly collaborating in Big Lies to its own disadvantage. Today, the BBC has defended the "grisly beheading of a Muslim by a Christian zealot in a new drama. The beheading scene comes in an episode dealing with the excavation of medieval soldiers from the time of the Crusades. It leads to the hunt for the cross on which Jesus was crucified which the Crusaders may have brought back from the Holy Land. Also keen to find the cross are right-wing Christian fanatics who also want to use violence to drive Muslims out of Britain." Who created this program at the BBC? Have they lost their minds? Were Muslims living in Britain in the middle ages? Who has really been be-heading people today: Christians or Muslims? Who today is persecuting and exiling infidels (Jews, Christians, Hindus, Bahai, etc.) from allegedly Muslim lands? Why present, even as fiction-especially as fiction-the exact opposite of both historical and contemporary reality? But there's worse. Just the other day, the British government gave a $70,000.00 grant to a Muslim hate site (Muslimyouth.net) in which suicide bombings and the beheadings of Daniel Pearl and Ken Bigley are praised. This grant was awarded only weeks before the anniversary of the London 7/7/05 bombings by Islamists. No doubt, the British government believes that such funding is a form of diplomacy and "sensitivity." But, Islamist immigrants in the West and Islamist totalitarian regimes also indulge in propaganda. The tyrannies of the Third World expend vast resources to tell Big Lies about Western democracies. Their persecution of Christians in Muslim countries is only exceeded by the brazen way in which they create "no go" areas for-Muslims-only throughout (Christian) Europe. Two Muslim believers in "violent jihad" are now on trial in London. They had planned to create a secret Muslim state in the heart of Scotland where disgruntled Muslims who felt "oppressed" could live. By the way: These two charmers possessed videos of beheadings of American hostages in Iraq. Perhaps the BBC will fictionalize their story by reversing it and showing us Christians beheading Muslims in Iraq. In addition, those countries who do not allow civil and human rights to flourish within their borders, do not hesitate to denounce and call for reform in Western countries. For example, a recent United Nations Human Rights Council recently argued that Britain should abolish its monarchy. Oddly enough, this august body has 29 members including Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Sri Lanka. What-and no discussion of abolishing the Saudi monarchy? According to the Telegraph, the UN report was also critical of the UK's treatment of immigrants from Sudan." What? No critique of the ethnic Arab Muslim genocide and gender cleansing of black African Sudanese? Well, of course not. Finally, "Syrian representatives accused the UK of discriminating against Muslims and Iran complained about the UK's record on tackling sexual discrimination." Truly, this is a Mad Hatter's party given the savage suppression of both women and feminist activists in Iran and the nature of Muslim countries in which historically, all Jews were persecuted and ultimately forced to flee and all Christians currently remain endangered. Indeed, a few days ago, a Jordanian court annulled the marriage of a Muslim who converted to Christianity. According to the report, "Islam, Jordan's official religion, forbids conversion to another faith." The convert is on the run with his wife and children because another convert to Christianity had been seriously attacked in Jordan. Quo Vadis my friends? 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 s co-founder of the still ongoing Association for Women in Psychology (1969). Visit her website at http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/phyllischesler/ |
|
DEIR-YASSAN REGURGITATED
Posted by Maurice Ostroff, June 14, 2008. | ||||
|
EDITOR'S NOTE: BACKGROUND: In many cases, the facts haven't caught up with the original distortions, particularly because these distortions/inventions were perpetuated by a rabid anti-Zionist, Israel Shamir. It turns out Shamir was a Swede, not a Jew, and "had worked for Zavtra, Russia's most anti-Semitic publication, and is allied with the Vanguard News Network, set up by an American, Alex Linder –– a man so extreme that he was even ostracised by the US neo-Nazi National Alliance." [ Click here.] Below is the exchange in chronological order between Maurice Ostroff and Ronnie Kasrils, South African Minister of Intelligence. | ||||
Contact Maurice Ostroff at maurice@trendline.co.il and visit his website:
|
|
ISRAEL THE BEAUTIFUL: SUNSET NEAR SDEROT
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, June 14, 2008. |
|
Yehoshua LaLevi writes: HOW I GOT THE SHOT: Many years ago, I photographed a sunset at the Grand Canyon. There was an observation point along the road where about 25 tourists had gathered, but as soon as the sun dipped below the horizon, all but three of us went on our way. One of the other photographers quipped to me, "This is where you separate the amateurs from the pros!" Why? Because the best light from a sunset often occurs about 15-20 minutes after the sun disappears. He was right, as the best shots of the evening came a short while after the crowd had vanished. Despite being among the most commonly photographed subjects, sunsets frequently yield disappointing results. After all, how can you take a wide expanse of sky, the unique mood of twilight and a process that often lasts more than an hour and reduce it to the blink of an eye? Well, you can't really. Although I've taken many very satisfying sunset photos, I still find myself chasing after a good one and studying the sky in the late afternoon to see if clouds and weather patterns will combine for a good celestial show. This shot was taken near the city of Sderot, on the way back from
a trip to Gush Katif two years ago. I was traveling with friends when
we noticed the colors forming in the sky with only a few minutes to
spare before the sun disappeared. We jumped out of the car and looked
for some high ground. Often with sunsets, I'll look for some
interesting terrain to add to the composition, but in this case the
horizon was just a straight line over flat ground, which didn't add
any interest to the photo. Choosing to include only sky, I then
focused on forming the best possible composition. Placing the
fireball at the bottom of the frame was a bit unconventional, but it
seemed to fit nicely at the tip of the downward spiral formed by the
clouds and colors. Finally, the narrow, vertical format accentuates
the patterns in the sky and the downward motion of the setting sun.
In retrospect, this was the right cropping decision, but I still
hedged my bets by taking a few horizontals as well, and sticking
around for another 10 minutes.
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website: http://www.goldenlightimages.com
|
|
LAND, LAW AND DEATH
Posted by Martin Sherman, June 14, 2008. | |
| Martin Sherman analyzes MK Eldad's call to enforce death penalty over territorial concession | |
|
The recent furor over MK Eldad's call to enforce the death penalty against politicians promoting territorial concessions has given the above clause stark relevance and ignited fierce public debate –– fueled mainly by ignorance. Thus an orderly debate of the matter seems both urgent and appropriate The existing Israeli Penal Code –– 1977, Article 97(b) explicitly states: A person who, with intent that any area be withdrawn from the sovereignty of the State or placed under the sovereignty of a foreign state, commits an act calculated to bring this about, is liable to life imprisonment or the death penalty. Regarding the severity of the penalty prescribed, it ought to be pointed out that Article 96 sets forth the following limitation: Notwithstanding the provisions of this Chapter (State Security, Foreign Policy, and Official Secret –– MS) the Courts will not impose the death penalty unless the offence is committed in a period in which military actions are being conducted by Israel or against it. Clearly even without the recent official declaration of Gaza as a "hostile entity," it is difficult to see how the current period cannot be considered as anything else but one "in which military actions are being conducted by Israel or against it." Another aspect of the severity of the penalty prescribed in article 97 is reflected in Article 98 (Causing War) which states: A person who, with intent to bring about military action against Israel, commits an act to bring this about is liable to fifteen years imprisonment; if he intends to aid and abet the enemy he is liable to the death penalty or life imprisonment. From this, two things emerge. The first is that Israeli law considers the bringing of war upon the country a lesser offence than an attempt to remove territory from its sovereignty –– since it carries a far lighter sentence. The second is that in the eyes of the prevailing law in Israel, the removal of territory from Israeli sovereignty is equivalent –– at least in terms of the severity of the prescribed penalty –– to aiding and abetting the enemy. At this point it is difficult to avoid broaching several disturbing questions, for it would seem that almost all Israeli governments (or at least numerous ministers and prime ministers who served in them) since the 1977 Camp David Agreements –– and certainly during the last decade and a half since Oslo –– have grossly violated article 97(b) of the Penal Code...and are thus liable for the penalties prescribed therein. Clearly, given today's political realities, no one realistically expects the wholesale execution of government ministers –– past or present. Yet the failure of the Israeli legal establishment to activate –– or alternatively, to eliminate –– such a grave and far-reaching clause raises serious doubts as to the criteria that guide the conduct of the affairs of the nation and in particular the equitable dispensation of justice. In this regard it should be pointed out that since its enactment in 1977, the Israeli Penal code has been continuously updated –– including during Olmert's incumbency –– yet there has be no attempt to remove, or modify, Article 97. Of course, one could try to explain away some of the inaction by more abstruse legal interpretations. One could, for example, claim that the legislative intent was to include only areas over which Israel officially claimed sovereignty. But what about the Golan and east Jerusalem –– areas over which Israel has effectively extended its sovereignty? Should not those who purposefully act to remove these areas from Israeli sovereignty or place them under the sovereignty of a foreign state be considered in violation of the law? And if not, why not? Some, like Ariana Melamed, in her recent article "Words can kill" invoke Article 94 which translates roughly into the following: "An act will not be considered a violation according to this article if it reflects an act of good faith or if it is committed in good faith with the intention to bring about, in ways that are not illegal, changes in the mode of operation of the state or any one of its organs, of a foreign state or one of its organs, or any institution or organization of states" However in interpreting Article 94 it must be noted it refers to other articles such as: Aiding and abetting the enemy in war(99); Intention to commit treason (100); Serving in forces of the enemy (101); Helping enemy prisoners of war escape (102) ; Dissemination of subversive propaganda (103). This of course raises some intriguing questions: 1. How is one to reconcile "good faith" with acts of aiding and abetting the enemy in war; intending to commit treason; serving in enemy forces...? What does this entail for the validity of Article 94, its interpretation and scope? One could also raise the possibility that the legislative intent was to preclude official government organs and personnel from the prohibitions prescribed in article 97(b). But even if we embrace this improbable position, thorny problems persist. For if this was the original intent, why was it not explicitly specified? Moreover, why was/is the law not enforced against those individuals who were not part of the governmental apparatus and overtly acted to foster transfer territory from undisputed Israeli sovereignty to that of an alien entity? It was only in 1999 the Administration and Law Arrangements Law passed in which appears to specify conditions under which the government can withdraw sovereignty from territories where it previously prevailed (an absolute majority in the Knesset and a referendum –– once the Basic Law specifying the conditions for the conduct of referendum, is passed.) However, even if the later law is seen as taking precedence, this still leaves open the question of the status of those individuals and organizations (government and non-government) that acted to transfer territory to foreign sovereignty prior to 1999, and of that non-government ones who did so after 1999. These are questions that cannot be left unanswered. For if the legal establishment genuinely wishes to address and curb the growing erosion in the public trust and confidence it enjoys, it must act vigorously to narrow the growing gap between its own code of conduct and the prevailing public perceptions of common sense and precepts of elemental natural justice. EDITOR'S NOTE: This comment by a reader of the original article was an interesting amplification of Martin's thesis.
Contact Martin Sherman at ms6747@gmail.com. |
|
AIPAC & U.S. JEWISH COWARDLINESS; SYRIAN NUCLEAR FACILITIES
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 13, 2008. |
|
ISRAEL'S ECONOMY GAINS Israel reduced its unemployment to a 24-year low of 6.3% (Arutz-7, 5/29). The US rate is 5%. AIPAC & U.S. JEWISH COWARDLINESS The lawyer for one of the former AIPAC officials going on trial for sharing classified information said that the government deceived AIPAC into thinking the charge was espionage and that the AIPAC employees knowingly committed it. The government showed AIPAC part of a tape out of context. The government is stretching legal interpretation even to suggest there was an offense. The certainly did not inform a foreign government but fellow Americans, as lobbyists commonly do. Their intent was benign and not to break the law. The government used entrapment. The government's goal is to stop leaks. AIPAC fired the officials. At government request, it denied them legal assistance. Defense counsel says that under those circumstances, AIPAC should rehire the pair and the Jewish community should support them and tell the government it is acting wrongly (Arutz-7, 9/29). It won't. Official US Jewry is cowardly. I think that the US seeks to discourage lobbying for Israel. The real problems are: (1) The US lets dangerous spies go, if agents for governments that the US is appeasing; and (2) The US acts high-handedly towards friends of Israel. NY TIMES ON BAGHDAD JEWS The NY Times had a sympathetic story about Jews, the ones in Baghdad. Very few are left of the formerly 130,000, a wealthy community left behind when most of the Jews returned from Babylonian exile to Jerusalem about 600 BCE. The few remaining in Iraq rarely leave their street or attract public notice, lest extremists murder them. In modern times, the Jews were beset by a pogrom in 1941, by WWII, and by the Holocaust (Stephen Farrell, 6/1, A1). Although Mr. Farrell admitted Jewish residency in ancient Jerusalem, the newspaper usually does not rebut Palestinian Arabs claiming that the Jews did not live there then. Why doesn't the paper set the record straight, instead of letting Muslim propaganda make false claims unchallenged? The article should have mentioned that during the war, a pro-Nazi cabal temporarily seized the country and that the would-be murderers today are Muslim. Otherwise, this was a rare article sympathizing with oppressed Jews. IRAQI MUSLIM ETHNIC CLEANSING Sweden is hosting a conference on Iraqi reform. About 600,000 members of ancient Christian sects fled Iraq, of whom 35,000 went to Sweden. They are demonstrating against ethnic cleansing of Christians: "including abductions and assaults of girls and women, and the forcing of women to wear veils in line with strict Islamic doctrines" and forced conversion and church-bombing. The Christians don't object to the attention given Kurds, other Sunnis, and Shiites, but want to have a safe, autonomous area in Iraq (IMRA, 5/29). The US intervention saved the Kurds but not the Christians. Islamists all over the Mideast harass Christians. If there are any moderate Muslims, they don't stop the harassment. SYRIAN NUCLEAR FACILITIES Where was the fuel made, for the bombed Syrian nuclear facilities? The US believes it has identified three more Syrian nuclear facilities, probably supporting the bombed factory. It wants the IAEA to inspect those sites. Meanwhile, Syria, which denied that the bombed factory was nuclear, razed the bombed site and built something else over it in that remote area. A literal cover-up (IMRA, 5/29). EGYPT'S ROLE IN GAZA CEASEFIRE Egypt professes opposition to smuggling of arms to Hamas. Nevertheless, it is mediating between Hamas and Israel for a ceasefire, during which the arms smuggling would continue unopposed by Israel. Worse, Hamas is demanding that the Gaza border with Egypt be opened (for smuggling) during any ceasefire. Why does Egypt promote a ceasefire that would let more smuggling go on? (IMRA, 5/30). Israel's leaders fail to ask why Hamas wants a ceasefire. DANGER OF PRISONER RELEASE Hizbullah is negotiating a release of prisoners with Israel, to include Samir Kuntar, a murderer. Kuntar wrote a vow to resume terrorism (IMRA, 5/30). Is Israel had a brain-live and heart-pure government, it would reject such a prisoner exchange as counter-productive. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear regularly in 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 |
|
THE COURT VERSUS OUR COUNTRY
Posted by Gary Bauer, June 13, 2008. |
|
I want to begin today's report with a history lesson. On June 13, 1942, four armed German spies rowed ashore from a German U-boat on the beaches of Long Island, New York. They were sent to sabotage American defense plants. Four days later, four more German spies landed near Jacksonville, Florida. Thankfully, all eight were quickly captured before they could carry out their missions. In the middle of World War II, these men were tried by military tribunal, not in civilian courts. Their cases began less than a month later, on July 8, 1942, and all eight were convicted on August 4, 1942, less than two months after coming ashore. All were sentenced to death. Two men, who cooperated with the government, were spared by President Roosevelt, but the remaining six were executed at a District of Columbia jail four days later. In less than two months time, these Nazis were captured, tried and executed. Once upon a time, not that long ago, America was a serious nation. Yet, almost 66 years later to the day, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, has now declared that Islamofascist terrorists captured on foreign soil possess more rights under our Constitution than Nazi spies sent here to commit acts of terrorism. The decision is a legal travesty across the board. It threatens the separation of powers by undermining the authority of the president as commander-in-chief and thwarting repeated efforts of Congress to address the issue. In striking down these procedures yet again, the court created total chaos as it offered no alternative solution. Writing for the dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts denounced the liberal majority, noting, "Today the Court strikes down as inadequate the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants." It was an act of blatant judicial activism by overturning prior precedent that had denied constitutional habeas corpus protections to non-citizens. It was an act of judicial terrorism that betrayed our national security. It was not just an assault upon common sense, but on our country. This morning's Washington Post carried this headline: "Justices Say Detainees Can Seek Release." Do you feel safer now that five liberal lawyers on the Supreme Court have decided that terrorists can "seek release"? One American who clearly does not feel safer is Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote in his dissenting opinion, "America is at war with radical Islamists. ...The game of bait-and-switch that today's opinion plays upon the Nation's Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. ...In the short term, however, the decision is devastating. At least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to the battlefield." He went on to cite numerous atrocities committed by these men. This defeat for America was a "victory" for the radical ACLU. The organization recently put together a "dream team" of dozens of lawyers, led by former Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno, to support the liberal legal effort to free the terrorists. The same organization is now raising hundreds of millions of dollars to bring its "values" to courtrooms throughout heartland America. Yesterday the ACLU hailed the decision in an e-mail to supporters as a "stunning blow to the administration's failed detention policies." Interestingly, the New York Times similarly described the ruling as a "rebuff to the Bush administration." The radical Left and its liberal allies in Big Media just don't get it. President Bush isn't the enemy here! Never before in our nation's history would an action beneficial to America's wartime enemies be hailed by the media and political interest groups as a "defeat" for our president. Whose side are they on? Once upon a time, America was a serious country. But like Gulliver, America is being tied down by the Lilliputians –– small men and radical special interest groups with petty and dangerous agendas. The strength of our families and our faith is being sapped, while the strength of our military and our national resolve to defend freedom is being restrained. From the cultural war over our values to the war against Islamofascism for our freedom, the Left and our courts are increasingly on the wrong side. I don't believe it is too late for men and women of faith to rally to America's defense, but time is not on our side. If you are as concerned as I am, stay tuned –– on Monday I will share with you some actions you can take to fight for our values! Gary Bauer is the president of American Values. Contact him at gary.bauer@mail.amvalues.org. And visit the website: http://www.ouramericanvalues.org |
|
AUTHORS OF Posted by Stand With Us, June 13, 2008. |
|
Staff and Student Fellows protest the authors of The Israel Lobby as they visit Israel Controversial authors of The Israel Lobby, Professor Stephen Walt and Professor John Mearsheimer were hosted today at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and in Tel Aviv today. They were brought to Israel by Gush Shalom, a fringe organization that is described by many as extremist. Walt and Mearsheimer's work has been roundly condemned by academics, historians and journalists as a distorted and shoddy study that fails to meet basic academic standards in its bid to put forward the author's bigoted opinions on Israel. StandWithUs has been exposing the errors and innuendoes regarding "Jewish conspiracy in the US." When Walt and Mearsheimer decided to come to Israel, StandWithUs Israel staff and student fellows were there to counter the misinformation featured in the presentations. SWU distributed materials with a point and counterpoint analysis of the biased arguments of "The Israel Lobby" and asked searching questions of the speakers. StandWithUs was the only organization to take a public and active stand against Walt and Mearsheimer's Israel visit. StandWithUs resources countering the misinformation of "The Israel Lobby" were on desks as Walt and Mearsheimer speak. The Professors presentation seemed tailored for its audience, with Stephen Walt starting by professing his support for Israel but it was not long before the hidden agendas were revealed. A skilled presenter, Walt repeated his central contention, that "the Israel Lobby" is promoting policy that is bad for the US and bad for Israel. Both Professors referred repeatedly and in sinister tones to "the Lobby" and claimed that most Americans are in favor of cutting off aid to Israel. Throughout the speech, the emphasis for all wrongdoing in the Arab-Israeli conflict was placed on Israel. Professor Mearsheimer gave a brutal attack on Israel in the second part of their presentations, filled with extreme opinions. He claimed that it is US support for Israel fuelled the 9-11 attacks. He made no mention of Bin Laden's hatred of America and Al Qaeda's emphasis on the conflicts in Afghanistan and over Kashmir and other issues, echoing the Islamist conspiracy theorists that use the 9-11 attacks to defame Israel. Questions from the audience in Jerusalem put the Professors on the defensive. They responded angrily to certain questions, including those from StandWithUs Israeli Fellows. Their answers give support for terrorism and to those who shoot rockets from Gaza into Israel. Walt contended that the US will "pay the price" for its support of Israel. By the time they reached Tel Aviv, the format had changed and questions were only allowed if they had been submitted in writing beforehand, giving the Professors more an easier ride. StandWithUs was there, however, to distribute materials that challenged the misinformation. In a sharp response to a question about the Iranian threat, Walt retorted that Iranian President "Ahmadinejad's comments are not an incitement to genocide". This opinion was offered in spite of recent comments by Ahmadinejad threatening to "wipe Israel off the map" and to "delete" Israel, which is, in Ahmadinejad 's words, "a stinking corpse". StandWithUs Fellow Phillip Pfeffer handed out the StandWithUs brochure on Walt and Mearsheimer. Phillip is not Jewish, but has lived most of his life in Israel, has served in the army and now studies at the InterDisciplinary Center, Herzliya. Michael Dickson, Director of the StandWithUs' international office in Israel said, "Professors Walt and Mearsheimer proved today that their opinions are as outlandish as they are extreme and marginal. If they were seeking credibility by coming to Israel, they allowed the mask to slip in front of an Israeli audience and showed that their wild claims stem from their own prejudice against Israel. They used the academic freedom Israel provides to attack Israel and those who support her so we made sure we were there to speak up against their lies." Roz Rothstein, International CEO of StandWithUs commented that "StandWithUs believes in the promise of never again. We will not sit by as lies are told about Israel and the Jewish people. We will be active in challenging misinformation and this is part of what we do around the globe." Download StandWithUs's brochure on Walt and Mearsheimer from
http://www.standwithus.org
Contact Stand With Us at info@standwithus.com and visit their
website:
|
|
'NO' TO THE EU: WHY EUROPE SHOULD LISTEN TO IRELAND
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 13, 2008. |
|
This was written by Sebastian Borger in London for Der Spiegel
[EDITOR'S NOTE: As background, read "These Boots Are Gonna Walk All Over You," by Professor Anthony Coughlan here.] |
|
Ireland shot down the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum held on Thursday. Already, EU politicians are branding the Irish as ingrates. But it is exactly that kind of arrogance which helped lead to the Irish "no" in the first place. It was a process that began seven years ago. Meeting after difficult meeting, compromise after painful compromise, members of the European Union hammered out a new set of rules aimed at improving the way the EU functions. In 2004 –– at a time, ironically, when Ireland held the rotating European Council presidency –– the process resulted in a European Constitution. But in 2005, the constitution idea was rejected by the French and the Dutch. Still, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was able to breathe new life into the EU reform last year. On Friday, though, with most of the results in from the Lisbon Treaty referendum held in Ireland, it looks like the process has once again been dashed. With 29 of 43 constituencies reporting the results of the Thursday vote, 53.5 percent of those casting ballots have rejected the treaty with 46.5 percent voting in favor. Because all 27 EU member states have to approve the Lisbon Treaty for it to be adopted, the Ireland vote single-handedly derails the agreement. Brussels is disappointed –– and furious. When France and Holland rejected the EU constitution three years ago, it sent the alliance into two years of soul searching. This time around, EU functionaries thought they had satisfied doubts about the depth of democracy in the EU –– and about concerns that too much power was being centralized in Brussels. So far, accusations of Irish ingratitude have been muted. But it likely won't stay that way for long. Already on Monday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, a diplomat not always known for his diplomacy, said that Ireland itself would be the first victim of its own referendum. "They have benefited more than others," Kouchner said on RTL radio. "It would be very, very awkward if we were not able to count on the Irish, who have often counted on Europe." At first glance, Kouchner has a point. The island nation of 4.3 million has received billions of euros worth of subsidies from Brussels during its 35-year-old membership in the European Union. In recent years, Ireland's economy has enjoyed rapid growth –– indeed, the so-called "Celtic Tiger" will even soon become a net payer to the European Union. Instead of people flowing out of Ireland looking for work, Europeans from all over the continent are now flowing in. But there is more to it than that. Kouchner's comment assume that anyone who is pro-Europe must necessarily be in favor of the Lisbon Treaty. At the same time, Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen and others from the pro-treaty camp have complained that the "no" camp in Ireland often focused on issues that had nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty. So was the vote about the document at hand? Was it about Ireland's membership in the European Union or the future of the EU itself? Or was it about something else entirely? Listen to the Irish themselves and it becomes clear that they remain, for the most part, committed Europeans. In the run up to Thursday's referendum, though, the country posed two questions born of pragmatism: Is this treaty good for us? And: Are we happy with the current development of the EU? Both questions are ones which many millions of Europeans would likely have responded to with "no." Had they been asked. Supporters of the treaty argued that the EU needs to "function better," and that the Lisbon Treaty would help it do so. Opponents, though, responded by pointing out that the institutions in Brussels didn't exactly collapse after the French and the Dutch rejected the EU constitution in 2005. And voters instinctively suspect that behind all the talk of "functioning better" lies a process that makes them uneasy, namely that the political elite are continuously working to increase European integration. The treaty did indeed call for some changes to knit Europe closer together. One provision was for a "president" who would serve for two-and-a-half years to replace the current system whereby the presidency rotates every six months. Still, calling the position a president is something of a misnomer in that heads of government from the 27 member states would still have had most of the say. The treaty also called for the position of foreign minister, though it avoided that title. The European Court of Justice and the European Parliament would also have gained additional powers. But there were specifically Irish fears which played into the "no" vote as well –– fears which proved difficult to dispel. The Lisbon Treaty, its opponents never tired of pointing out, would have lessened the voting leverage of smaller EU members and would thus have been bad for Ireland. Furthermore, Ireland, like the other 26 EU members, would have had to do without its own EU commissioner at times due to a provision in the treaty to shrink the size of the European Commission. Such a loss would not be a big deal for bigger countries like the UK or Germany, whose influence in Brussels is secure. For a small country like Ireland, however, it was clearly a consideration. But the argument that perhaps resonated the most was the specter –– called into being by those opposed to the Lisbon Treaty –– of Brussels eventually passing a uniform tax code for the EU. Ireland, after all, was able to kick start its boom by offering generous tax breaks to investors from the US and elsewhere. Even the slightest hint that Ireland could lose control of its own tax policy was enough to prick up Irish middle-class ears. Most importantly, however, the discussion leading up to Thursday's referendum was intense. And even if many of the issues raised had little to do with the Lisbon Treaty, Irish voters were the only ones able to vote and Ireland was the only country of 27 where an intense public debate took place. Their verdict on the project of European integration should be carefully considered. Bernard Kouchner-style arrogance, in any case, should be avoided at all costs. Talk of Irish ingratitude or arguments that referenda are unsuitable in the EU would merely increase the already wide gulf between the EU elite-o-crats and the voting public. That, though, looks to be exactly what will happen. Already, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown have said that ratification of the Lisbon Treaty should continue as planned –– as though the Irish referendum never took place. But for the EU –– which sings the praises of democracy and does what it can to improve democratic institutions in places like Turkey –– that would be the wrong way to go.
WHAT THE LISBON TREATY WOULD GIVE EUROPE The introduction of a new European Council President to be elected for a term of 2.5 years. Until now, the presidency has rotated among member nations every six months. The introduction of an EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy. The position would represent the EU on foreign policy issues. More decisions made by the European Council would be decided on a qualified majority basis though important decisions would still have to be unanimous. The European Commission would be reduced in size from its current 27 members to just 18 in the future. The posts would rotate among member-countries. The European Parliament would be granted greater lawmaking powers than it has enjoyed up to this point. The European Charter of Fundamental Rights would become legally enforceable.
HOW EUROPE CAN MOVE FORWARD A Second Referendum in Ireland A second referendum in Ireland would be possible. A precedent for this already exists: After Irish voters rejected the Treaty of Nice in 2001, the government put it up for vote again the following year –– and that time it succeeded. However, the Lisbon Treaty would have to be changed to accommodate the skeptics. As a result, the treaty would probably not come into force on January 1, 2009, as planned. But this option will only work, if other countries that are also skeptical of the treaty, such as Great Britain and Poland, do not place their ratifications on hold after an Irish no. A New EU Treaty It is unlikely there will be a third attempt to hammer out a completely new EU treaty. In June 2007, during Germany's EU presidency, Chancellor Angela Merkel only just managed to push through the Lisbon Treaty against opposition from Britain and Poland. Still, after the collapse of the EU constitution in 2005, a new reform treaty also seemed to be impossible. Continuing with the Nice Treaty If the EU doesn't reform its institutions it will have to continue to work with the Nice Treaty, which has been in force since 2003. The problem is the treaty mostly requires unanimous decisions, which can be hard to achieve with 27 members. On top of that the influence of the European Parliament is limited. With every new EU enlargement –– Croatia could join as early as 2010 –– each member states' number of votes would have to be laboriously renegotiated. The Lisbon Treaty was meant to rectify these problems. A Two-Speed Europe As unanimous decisions in the enlarged Europe have already become harder to achieve, current EU treaties include the option of "closer cooperation." This is to allow some member states to press ahead with integration, even if others are not in favor. But a "two speed Europe", as exemplified in Great Britain and Ireland not participating in the Schengen border free zone –– is controversial. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
BRITISH MP GEORGE GALLOWAY TO HAMAS TV: I PRAY FOR OBAMA'S SAFETY
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 12, 2008. |
This comes from MEMRI:
Contact Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) at www.memri.org |
|
"I Pray For the Safety of Barack Obama, And I Pray That He Can Shift the U.S.'s Attitude" "I hope that the new presidency in the United States... I pray for the safety of Barack Obama, and I pray that he can shift the United States' attitude to this question. But as you know, Palestine cannot free itself. It is a small country against a huge superpower. The real problem is not in Palestine. It's not even in London or Washington. The real problem is in the Arab world. From Marrakesh to Bahrain –– 300 million Arabs, oil at $136 per barrel... If the Arabs wanted to solve this Palestine problem, they could do so in six days.[...]" "These Puppet Presidents and Corrupt Kings May Discover That the Ground Has Moved Under Their Feet, Allah Willing" "The Americans are not in a position to intervene anywhere in the Arab world, because they have been defeated by the muqawama [resistance] in Iraq. And so, sunk in this swamp in Iraq and in Afghanistan, the U.S. is no longer able to assist its puppets in the Middle East. So as we come towards the November elections, and the real prospect of a significant victory for Obama, everyone will have to re-find their footing, and these puppet presidents and corrupt kings may discover that the ground has moved under their feet, Allah willing.[...]" "So We Have To Change the Policy of the United States, Through Our Work in Europe, Through a Change in the Attitude, Or a Change of the Leaders of the Arab World" "I think there are important changes coming in Israel also. Olmert may be in prison by the weekend. He may be replaced by the foreign minister or by Barak. He may be replaced, God forbid, by Netanyahu. I don't believe the key lies in Tel Aviv. Israel is not an independent country. It must act under the orders of the United States, which provides every bullet and every dollar. "So we have to change the policy of the United States, through our work in Europe, through a change in the attitude, or a change of the leaders of the Arab world, to show the United States that it must change its policy in the region. After all, if the United States can take everything she wants from the Arabs, and still follow a policy of cutting throats of the Arabs –– why to change? If you can have whatever you want, and do whatever you want –– well, why to change?" Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
FORMER GAZA COLLABORATORS: INVADE GAZA AND FINISH THE JOB
Posted by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, June 12, 2008. |
|
Former Gaza Arabs who aided Israel in the war against terror say the only way to end rocket attacks is to return to Gaza and clean out the weapons. Approximately 80 families living in the rocket-battered city of Sderot are Arabs from Gaza who were collaborators for Israeli intelligence before the destruction of Jewish communities and the IDF withdrawal from the area three years ago. Many of them are now advising the Israeli government to return to Gaza and clean out the area of terrorists and their weapons in order to bring peace and quiet to the western Negev and Gaza Belt communities. One collaborator, who like his associates uses an alias and refers to himself as having been an "assistant" to the Israeli government, told the British Guardian, "When the Israelis ruled Gaza, people lived like kings. Only when the army goes into Gaza can they finish it." Another man, named Subhi, advised that "the only choice is an Israeli military occupation to clean the area of weapons." He added he does not "believe there can be real peace." Subhi told the Guardian he arrived in Sderot 12 years ago and now runs a successful business, drives a BMW and wears gold jewelry engraved with Hebrew letters. Subhi told the Guardian he began as in informant not for the money but because he thought it was the right thing to do. "Samir," who worked for Israel for 20 years, said he was very happy to help the government. He proudly recalled that he took revenge against Arab authorities who killed his brother, who was falsely accused of being a collaborator. His children now study at a Hebrew language school, and one of his four sons was an interrogator for four years for Israeli security forces at a nearby prison. He told the newspaper, "Everything is straightforward, not like with the Arabs. Here there is a law, and there are rights." A nearby neighbor said his life in Israel is good and that if he ever were to return to Gaza, "They would make a kebab [meat pattie] out of me. They'd chop me into pieces." All Arab collaborators face the possibility of execution by both Fatah and Hamas political leaders. Last month, Islamic Jihad arrested several Arabs on suspicion of helping Israel and was planning to carry out public executions. Hamas persuaded them to turn over most of the alleged collaborators. Fatah leader and Palestinian Authority (PA) chairman Mahmoud Abbas, who is considered a moderate by the Bush and Olmert administrations, previously ordered the execution of dozens of Arabs who helped Israel. Protests by human rights activists saved the lives of 24 men who were on death row last year. The Israeli government has helped the former assistants build new lives in Israel. Many of them left children behind in Gaza, but trying to bring the issue to the attention of the public is complicated. "Their contribution is considerable, but the problem is we can't make public what they have done," according to Natan Shrayber, a lawyer who worked for Israeli security forces. Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu writes for Arutz-7, where this article appeared today. |
|
CONSIDER REOCCUPYING GAZA WITHOUT A QUICK EXIT
Posted by Dr. Aaron Lerner, June 13, 2008. |
|
Is the fixation on the need for a quick "exit strategy" a matter of ideology or are the ramifications of not retreating quickly so costly that they swamp the benefits? Many analysts have presented strong arguments for an effective reoccupation of Gaza but when they assume a priori, that a necessary condition for any occupation is that it ends quickly, they are left either abandoning the idea or relying on house-of-cards arrangements to retreat. Arrangements that could actually leave Israel in a worse position than it is in today. But why should analysts straightjacket themselves by refusing to even consider an ongoing occupation as an option? It may not be an ideal solution. But it could very well be the best viable choice available today. A serious study would have to consider the goals of an ongoing occupation and how these goals might be satisfactorily met at the lowest possible costs. The results could be surprising. And when one considers the high costs Israel could very well face if it pursues the alternatives, it is nothing short of dereliction of duty not to entertain the option. Dr. Aaron Lerner is Director of IMRA, Independent Media Review and Analysis, an Israel-based news organization which provides an extensive digest of media, polls and significant interviews and events relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il Write him at imra@netvision.net.il |
|
JEWISH WAR
Posted by Moshe Feiglin, June 12, 2008. |
|
And when you go to war in your land against the adversary who oppresses you, then you shall sound an alarm with the trumpets; and you shall be remembered before G-d your G-d, and you shall be saved from your enemies." (Numbers 10:9) The above verse in this week's Torah portion holds all the elements that we need to fight the Kassams. But nothing in this verse exists today in Israel. That is why we cannot deal with our current security challenges. First, "War". This is not a low-intensity conflict nor any other type of post-modern aphorism used to blur reality. When rockets and shells fall in Sderot and Kfar Aza, that means that we are at war. He who does not understand that he is at war cannot win. Second, "In your land". The simple and basic understanding that this is our land does not exist today. A government that does not internalize the fact that Gaza is an inseparable part of Israel cannot really fight there. It will necessarily be lured into policing operations. And when here or there it actually accomplishes something, it will immediately be at the receiving end of international condemnation –– and justifiably so. If you have decided that you are a policeman, then don't expect the respect reserved for soldiers fighting a just battle. Third, "The adversary who oppresses you". There is a good side and an evil side in this story. It is not just a meaningless conflict. We represent good and our enemy represents bad. This is a war of the good against the bad. The destruction of evil is a lofty cause. This is not the war of survival of the browbeaten weakling gasping for just one more breath of life. It is the war of the Jewish Nation, fighting to realize its Divine destiny. Fourth, "Then you shall sound an alarm with the trumpets". The trumpets must also sound in the hearts of the residents of Tel Aviv. This is not the war of the outlying areas alone. Just like the siren sounded on Memorial Day that unites the entire nation around one issue, we must all unite around our common goal and destiny. Fifth, "Before G-d, your G-d". We have a G-d. We are empowered by an unquestionable moral force. We rely on our G-d while we prepare ourselves for war with the utmost military professionalism. We understand that it is not our might that brings us victory, but rather our faith and humility before G-d. We pray that we will soon merit Jewish leadership that will build Israel's army on the above foundations and will restore Israel's security and national pride. Shabbat Shalom,
Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) is a group of people inside
the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character.
Moshe Feiglin, its cofounder, has emphatically said he does not want a
theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The
Manhigut Yehudit website address is http://www.manhigut.org.
To learn more about Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) and to read
their plan for Israel's future, visit www.jewishisrael.org.
Or contact Shmuel Sackett, International Director (516) 330-4922
(cell)
|
|
INTL. OBSERVERS ARAB-BIASED; ON THE EDGE OF IDIOCY?; INTERNET ANTISEMITES VS. AIPAC
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 12, 2008. |
|
TEMPORARY INTL. PRESENCE IN HEBRON (TIPH) BIASED TIPH calls itself a neutral observer on the ground. However, it favors the Arabs. A TIPH pamphlet states that its reports "concern violence and harassment around settlements, shooting incidents and misconduct by police or soldiers, house searches, prolonged ID-checks and restrictions of freedom of movement." Nothing said about Muslim incitement to violence and terrorism. Another article states, ""After the war of 1948, Hebron came under Jordanian rule which lasted until the war of 1967 when Hebron was occupied by the Israeli army." Hebron "came under" Jordanian rule, but was "occupied" by Israel. That is a double standard. (Neither state occupied anything. What is significant is that Jordan seized the area in an act of aggression, whereas Israel took it in self-defense and the area is in the Mandate, giving Israel the right to annex it.) The article also claims that "since then (2002) the Israeli army operates over the entire area in violation of the agreements." What violation? The Arabs do violate the agreements, but TIPH does not mention it. In another article, TIPH mentions that two of its members were shot dead. It failed to acknowledge that they were shot by Arab terrorists. TIPH demanded that the Jewish "occupiers" of a building, be removed to relieve tensions. TIPH failed to note that the building is owned by the Jews. (The Israelis act within their rights, the Arabs threaten to fight, and then TIPH urges the Jews to appease potentially violent Arabs. Police should arrest rioters.) The map distributed by TIPH is the Arab one showing all Israeli cities as Palestinian and with Arabic names, rather than Israeli cities with Israeli names. A TIPH public opinion poll asks about "settler harassment" of Arab, not about Arab harassment of Jews (IMRA, 5/27), of which there is much. When will Israel stop letting in foreign organizations that promote the Arab side? POLL OF JEWS & ARABS IN ISRAEL The pollsters found a desire for integration and peaceful coexistence. The questions and answers shown support that. But the poll results omitted the answer that 76% of Israelis do not believe that greater integration of Arabs there would promote Israeli security. The fact that most Arabs prefer to live in Israel was misinterpreted as liking Israel. Suppose they were asked whether they prefer to live under Israel or in the same town under the P.A.? (IMRA, 5/27.) HAARETZ'S NOTION OF PLURALISM Israel denied admission to Prof. Norman Finklestein, a full-time devotee of non-scholarly Holocaust denial, neo-Nazi causes, and Hizbullah causes. Haaretz objected to the ban as not pluralistic. It argued that since Kahanists are admitted, so should he be. But Kahanists don't support murderers of Israelis. Their only crime is to disagree with Haaretz. Inside Israel, Kahanist speech is repressed. The newspaper does not object to that. Haaretz' has a peculiar notion of pluralism –– its own pages are monolithic (Prof. Steven Plaut, 5/27). Leftists, their phony civil rights organizations, and the media misrepresent Israel's barring of Mr. Finkelstein as censorship of his negative opinions about Israel and infringement of academic freedom. He was fired from his job as professor for not being an academic. It's not a matter of negative opinions, which Israel does allow in, but of his being a spokesman for Hizbullah, suspected of aiding it, and refusing to answer security officer's questions about who paid for his trip and what it is for (Prof. Steven Plaut, 5/29). COLOMBIA PRECEDENT ISRAEL SHOULD EXAMINE As you know, Colombia drug gangs/terrorists used Ecuador as a sanctuary from which to launch attacks on Colombia. Ecuador's duty was to prevent such attacks through its border. It didn't. Eventually, Colombia raided the rebel base. It found extensive documentation that the governments of Ecuador and Venezuela had aided the rebels. Interpol experts determined that the files found by Colombia were genuine and not altered. International law recognizes Colombia's right of self-defense, especially when the foreign government allows aggressors to go through the borders. Ecuador reacted by mobilizing troops against Colombia. Venezuela did likewise. It didn't come to war, when Colombia apologized. Ecuador got the Organization of American States to meet and take up the crisis. Except for Colombia and the US, all the members endorsed a resolution condemning Columbia's self-defense. They put the sovereign sanctity of Ecuador's border first. Never mind that Colombia was within its rights and Ecuador and Venezuela had fostered aggression against Colombia's sovereign rights. The implications for Israel are serious. IDF now can enter P.A. areas, for which it has overall security responsibility, whenever necessary to attack aggressors operating in them. But the government of Israel is considering ceding most of the P.A. to the Arabs for establishing a state (and all of the Golan). Once those areas are part of a sovereign state, the lesson from Colombia shows how difficult it would be for Israel to pursue terrorists into their lairs (IMRA, 5/29). It's crazy! ON THE EDGE OF HEAVEN That the title of an interesting, low-budget film about Turkish immigrants to Germany. A young woman, probably Kurdish, joined the terrorists because the government picked on non-Turks and only the rich get educated. She claims to be an innocent victim, but, as a terrorist, victimizes innocents. No excuse! Security forces clubbed a protest marcher. Israeli police club Jewish dissidents who don't even offer violence. There's no excuse for brutality. Arrest, if need be. ON THE EDGE OF IDIOCY? Although candidate Barak' speeches have not defined "change" beyond broad sentiment, people wanting change voted for him. They don't check what that change would be. His notion of expanding an already fumbling government may make things worse and would make them costlier. But does he want broad reform? Is he a modernizer? The NY Times Opinion section of 6/8 would have us think so. It contrasts him with candidate McCain, whom it depicts as backward-looking towards Reagan's philosophy of smaller government. Reagan, however, did not implement it. Therefore, McCain's policy would be for change. By contrast, Obama looks backward towards the New Deal era of growing government and welfare dependency. Government is too unthinking and amenable to lobbying. Big government drags on the economy, though the economy does need some monitoring. OVER THE EDGE: Internet Antisemites Vs. AIPAC The antisemites find candidates' flattery of AIPAC confirmation of their theory that AIPAC dictates US policy. Deep antisemitism, however, is a neurosis. [I checked this with a psychiatric social worker. The antisemites are not in command of their wits but driven by some twisted emotion. They don't recognize certain reality They start with prejudice. Anything they read or imagine against the Jewish people, they accept, and anything contradicting that or in behalf of Israel, they ignore. When two antisemites with titles of "professor" wrote a book based almost entirely on assertion, extreme exaggeration, or falsehood and misrepresentation, the Internet antisemites took it as academic confirmation that the Jews control the US. They do not think objectively –– that's their neurosis. Sure the candidates presented themselves to AIPAC as pro-Israel. That's pandering, not indication that the candidates understand the issues or would help Israel. AIPAC has minor influence. Let its critics explain how, if AIPAC is dictating to the US: (1) The Justice Dept. is bullying AIPAC; (2) The US arms Israel's enemies; (3) The US gets Israel to reduce anti-terrorism; and (4) The US demands that Israel cede territory to the P.A.. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear regularly in 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 |
|
VIGILANCE AGAINST VIGILANCE
Posted by A Recovering Presbyterian, June 12, 2008. |
|
EDITOR'S NOTE: The May document referenced below can be found at https://www.presbyweb.com/2008/News. Scroll down to May2008Statement.pdf to view/download it. The June document is also available at Scroll down to June2008Statement.pdf to view/download it. |
|
How the PC(USA) Inoculates Itself against Awareness of its Institutional Anti-Jewish Biases June of 2008 is a sad month for Presbyterians and for all those who reject bias and prize fairness. I say this in all sincerity: I am truly sad for my Presbyterian friends and for the many decent people who retain affiliation with the PC(USA). Before this month is out, there will likely be a good half dozen reasons for faithful Presbyterians to call it sad –– but I will not comment on most of them. I will, however, oppose those things that originate in the PC(USA) that cause active harm to others; and one such action has already occurred this month –– without benefit even of a General Assembly. Early in May the Office of Interfaith Relations of the corporation The Presbyterian Church (USA) released a statement, "Vigilance against Anti-Jewish Ideas and Bias". It was a truly remarkable effort. I commented on this document a month ago: I found it to display a high level of self-awareness, rare courage, and honesty; I also found it to represent an attempt to remain faithful to Presbyterian concerns for peace and justice while raising the alarm at tendencies toward antisemitism and anti-Jewish bias within the Presbyterian Church (USA) and among a number of Presbyterian allies. [Sure, the document had a couple of flaws –– for example, it cited a 1987 paper as Presbyterian policy when that paper was never actually approved by a General Assembly –– it doesn't really have status. Instead, it was commended to the church for study and reflection. It is often trotted out as an example of Presbyterian sensitivity to Jewish concerns, and it has much to recommend itself –– but it only represents that fact that in 1987 certain segments of the institution were concerned with avoiding Christian antisemitism and acknowledging historic wrongs of the church. The Interfaith Office also displayed a rather weak argument to attempt to excuse the use of anti-Judaic themes in support of overtures –– that the rationale was not an official part of the action of the General Assembly. Even with flaws, however, this May 2008 document represented both a baby step forward in Presbyterian-Jewish relations and a great leap forward in Presbyterian awareness of antisemitism.] In May I praised the efforts of the PC(USA)'s Office of Interfaith Relations; I did this against the advice of more seasoned observers of denominational events. I offered praise for two reasons. First, I believe it is important to acknowledge when someone does something that is truly good; this is almost essential when that good action concerns an issue where you have been critical. Second, it was the first good news from a bureaucratic element of a 'mainline' denomination I had received in quite a long time. Often large governing meetings may act wisely to mitigate the harmful agendas of their own bureaucracies –– as seems to have happened recently at the United Methodist Church's General Conference votes on policy toward Israelis and Palestinians. But for an actual office of a denomination to painfully acknowledge what is obvious to outside observers is a tremendous development. Nonetheless, given the actions of the PC(USA)' s Office of Interfaith Relations this week, it would be better if they had never released the first statement –– no matter how praiseworthy that original statement was. Early in June the Presbyterian Church (USA) Office of Interfaith
relations quietly removed its May document and subsequently replaced
it with another bearing the same title. The only clue an unsuspecting
reader would have that something had changed would be the date
provided –– from "May 2008" to "June 2008". A quick
reading, however, demonstrates that these two documents, "Vigilance
against Anti-Jewish Ideas and Bias –– May 2008" and
"Vigilance against Anti-Jewish Ideas and Bias –– June
2008" are as different as night and day. The June edition is as
blameworthy as the May edition was praiseworthy. The June document
lacks every one of the signature strengths of the May document.
Alterations to the Original Document 1. In May the Office of Interfaith Relations said: "However, we are aware and do confess that anti-Jewish attitudes can be found among us."In June it omitted this confession and acknowledgement of awareness. 2. In May the Office of Interfaith Relations said: "Examples of such an anti-Jewish theology can unfortunately be found in connection with PC(USA) General Assembly overtures, such as the overture on Confronting Christian Zionism, adopted by the 216th General Assembly in 2004. Some of the authors cited in the rationale of the overture make use in their writings of arguments suggesting or declaring that the Jewish people are no longer in covenant with God, or make statements that echo the medieval Christian claim that Jews are to blame for the crucifixion or Christ" In June it omitted this statement. 3. In May the Office of Interfaith Relations said: "Similarly, in a few materials that have been circulated by Presbyterians, one finds characterizations of Zionism that distort that movement." In June it eliminated the clause, "Similarly, in a few materials that have been circulated by Presbyterians". 4. In May the Office of Interfaith Relations (of the materials circulated by Presbyterians mentioned above) said: "The problems and suffering of the Palestinians are attributed solely –– and inaccurately –– to Zionism alone." In June the Office of Interfaith relations decided to omit "and inaccurately". 5. In May the Office of Interfaith Relations said: "Moving beyond legitimate denunciation of injustices the state of Israel has committed or may commit, some writing from this [liberation] theological perspective indict the state of Israel as a crucifying power. The introduction of such an emotionally and theologically "loaded" interpretation may vividly express and give meaning to the suffering of the Palestinian people, but it is troubling in its demonization of Israel and the Jewish people and its echoes of ancient Christian anti-Judaism." In June it omitted this paragraph. (Yes, it still retains some comment on crucifixion imagery, but it does not acknowledge that such imagery represents a move beyond legitimate denunciation of injustice.) 6. In May the Office of Interfaith Relations cautioned that: "Presbyterians who read writers speaking about Israel, Palestine, Israeli-Palestinian peace, and related issues (such as Christian Zionism in its various manifestations) must always read with an especially critical eye, alert to any and all anti-Jewish ideas and bias." In June it omitted its concern for bias in reading about Christian Zionism, and in a footnote, opportunistically employed a lengthy quote from Rabbi Eric Yoffie offering his disapproval of various specific Christian Zionists. 7. In May the Office of Interfaith Relations said: "Again, what such Palestinian theologians say offers Presbyterians in the United States an important theological reflection on the Israeli-Palestinian situation from the perspective of Christians affected by it. Yet it remains our responsibility to critique –– and not to accept –– those statements or ideas within it that are anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic." In June, it omitted this assertion of responsibility. Instead, the PC(USA)'s Office of Interfaith Relations discerns a different June responsibility: "As Presbyterians, we have a very difficult but very important differentiation to make. On the one hand, we are called to support the efforts of Palestinian Christians to speak theologically about what is happening to them at the hands of Israel and as a result of its policies. At the same time, we are also called to discern echoes of, and to confess our own complicity in, the historic condemnation of Jews as "Christ-killers," and to eschew any such anti-Jewish teaching." In other words –– Presbyterians no longer seem to have a responsibility to critique the anti-Jewish and antisemitic ideas and themes of their source materials. Instead, they are apparently to eschew calling Jews "Christ-killers" and acknowledge their vague mystical complicity in that historic practice. [The problem here is that the deicide language is being currently applied by many prominent partners of the PC(USA) and repeated by Presbyterians –– this fact was clearly acknowledged by the Office of Interfaith Relations in May. The "Christ-killer" language is not, however, often invoked directly by Presbyterians, and it is never invoked directly in the historic sense that appears to be referenced here. In short, a specific caution to Presbyterians about a very real problem is being replaced by vague advice to avoid a no-longer-current problem.] 8. In May the Office of Interfaith Relations asserted: "Such emphases [as liberation theologians typically employ] express important theological insights. But they can easily resemble Christian supersessionism, for example, by seeming to replace the Jewish people in their own story, or by embracing only the universal application of God's gift of land in exclusion of God's particular gift of land to the Jewish people. Or they can seem to repeat classic denunciations of Judaism, for example, through polemic that identifies today's oppressors as Jewish authorities in the time of Jesus, and so forth." In June it amends this statement to read "The same is true of theological statements that embrace only a universal understanding of God's gift of land, refusing also to acknowledge God's gift of land to the Jewish people and to all the descendants of Abraham." In June it also omits its concern for polemic that identifies today's oppressors as Jewish authorities in the time of Jesus. Additions to the Original Document Several things were added to the June version of "Vigilance against Anti-Jewish Ideas and Bias" that were not present in the May version. Some of these are helpful; others are neutral; still others weaken the original statement.
Here's the thing: the witness of the PC(USA) on Middle East issues has been marred at times by four harmful and morally indefensible flaws. These flaws have been indulged by offices, agencies, and representatives of the church and by various institutional Presbyterians. Presentation of false information. This was not addressed in either document except in the context of distortions of the history of Zionism. It has, however, occurred in numerous PC(USA) sources –– without retraction or amendment. Anti-Israel bias –– the treatment of the nation of Israel in a manner distinct from and inferior to the treatment of other nations and/or the application of a higher standard to Israel than that applied to other nations. That this has occurred has been thoroughly documented numerous times. Theological bias –– the use of explicitly Christian theologies and imagery to demonize and denigrate both Israel and the Jewish people. Examples of this were addressed in the May 2008 document. The current document, however, speaks generically –– and seeks to justify the practice in a number of cases. Antisemitism –– the invocation of stereotypical libels against the Jewish people –– for example, distortions of Zionism, claims that Jews control the media, assertions about the powerful Jewish lobby's control of American policy. All of these have been seen in PC(USA) sources. The PC(USA) is not unique in its experience of this problem; it is sadly common to a number of mainline denominations. In May 2008 the PC(USA)'s Office of Interfaith Relations gave every indication that it was courageous taking the initial steps necessary to acknowledge and address this problem. It is profoundly disappointing that this same office now seems to be abandoning those vitally necessary initial steps. Perhaps another of the 'mainline' denominations will begin this important process, perhaps not –– but it appears we will just have to wait. Will Spotts Contact A recovering Presbyterian at wspotts@zoominternet.net |
|
ARABS AND JEWS-HISTORY FALSIFIED
Posted by Simon McIlwaine, June 11, 2008. |
|
This is entitled "Holocaust Denial, Vesion 2.0" and was written by
Myles Kantor. It appeared today in Front Page Magazine
Myles Kantor is a columnist for FrontPageMagazine.com and editor-at-large for Pureplay Press, which publishes books about Cuban history and culture. His e-mail address is myles.kantor@gmail.com. |
|
Holocaust deniers are outcasts, but people who promote a similar lie often appear on television. I recently learned about Saree Makdisi while researching my FrontPage article about Hezbollah supporter and ex-professor Norman Finkelstein. An English professor at UCLA, last month Makdisi appeared on left-wing television program Democracy Now! for a debate with Finkelstein and Israeli historian Benny Morris on the occasion of Israel's 60th Independence Day. Toward the end of the debate, Morris criticized Makdisi's proposal of a one-state "solution" to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Makdisi replied, "the great moments of Sicily and Spain, and so forth, and Baghdad, etc., were always moments where Jews and Arabs lived together and worked together." Similarly, in a May 11 op-ed in The Los Angeles Times titled "Forget the two-state solution," he claimed, "It [Israel] is an ethno-religiously exclusive state that has tried to defy the multicultural history of the land on which it was founded." Others have argued that Israel's restoration in 1948 deviated from a past of peaceful Jewish-Arab coexistence and created new animosity. CBS News Middle East analyst Reza Aslan asserted last year in a debate with author Sam Harris, "Before 1948, of course, there were tens of thousands of Jews living alongside their Arab neighbors without any problem at all." Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss of the anti-Israel organization Neturei Karta said at a June 3 protest of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, "we are thankful...for the hospitality and safe haven and friendship that the Muslim people and the Arab people throughout the world has [sic] constantly given to the Jewish people throughout the ages." Here are some important dates in Arab-Jewish history: 627, 1066, 1465, 1828, 1912, 1920, 1929, 1934, 1938, 1941, and 1967. These dates correspond to massacres of Jews by Arabs in Medina, Granada, Fez, Baghdad, Fez again, Jerusalem, Hebron, Constantine, Tiberias, Baghdad again, and Tripoli. Jews under Arab rule had to wear identifying clothing, pay special taxes, could not ride horses, bear arms, etc. The Spanish-Jewish sage Maimonides noted these abuses in his 1172 Iggeret Teiman ("Epistle to Yemen"), responding to violent anti-Semitism in that country. Maimonides described the Arabs as those "who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us...Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they." Institutional degradation of Jews in Arab countries continued into modern times. Eli Moyal, the mayor of Sderot in southwestern Israel, was born in Morocco and has described his youth there: We lived quietly and in peace as long as we obeyed the rules. We had no political power, no say. It was against the law for a Jew to be involved in politics. It was a ghetto we lived in...We know the Arabs better than the Ashkenazim [Jews of European descent]. We obeyed Arab regimes for centuries; we know their traditional and cultural way of life –– we ran away from the Arabs.Jews dispossessed and expelled from Arab countries after 1948 offer similar recollections in the documentary The Forgotten Refugees. Aslan, Makdisi, and Weiss misrepresent Arab-Jewish history before 1948 in a way that resembles the filth of Holocaust denial. While the abhorrent facts have been widely documented in both cases, these individuals whitewash the Arab world's tyranny and terrorism against religious minorities. This falsification of history is today's version of the blood libel. Not only did the Jews betray a tradition of multicultural peace; they initiated an era of death and destruction with their belligerent nationalism. The falsification is thus another attempt to delegitimize Israel. In January 1935, a Palestinian religious authority issued a fatwa against selling land to Jews, denouncing how it would promote acceptance of "the Jews as rulers." Accustomed to subjugating Jews for centuries, the post-1948 reality of Jewish sovereignty unsettles Arabs' perception of dominion. This vile worldview manifests in a saying like "Al Yahud Kelabna" ("The Jews are our dogs"), chanted by Arabs in front of the Israeli consulate in San Francisco last July. The more clever Arabs claim that subjugation was really serenity, and how they wish for previous brotherhood to return. But they are not that clever, and they cannot erase what their people perpetrated against my people. Simon McIlwaine is with Anglican Friends of Israel (www.anglicanfriendsofisrael.com). Contact him at Simon.McIlwaine@ormerods.co.uk |
|
A MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE OR OBAMA'S CONNECTIONS TO KENYA ISLAMISTS
Posted by Crystal, June 11, 2008. |
|
What utterly shocks me is the fact that millions of americans are voting to empower as a future president a man with doubious records, who has a vague knowledge of international politics, ignorant about the true and real situation in ME, with no experience of public office, just because he's endowed with great rhetorical qualities ! –– reminding, yes, JFK's speeches (who wrote them, wasn't it Schlesinger or ...?) So that is enough to conquer the presidency ? of U.S.A.? Amazing, awesome. About the following info : I have a feeling that it fits quite well. If it's correct, things look rather grim for US and ultimately for civilized world. This comes from Resh at pnews.org and concerns Obama's Connections to Islamists in Kenya. He writes:
Below is an article entitled "Obama's African Hubris." It is by
retired CIA officer Larry Johnson and can be found
at
|
|
I suppose it is too much to ask of Obama supporters to read the following material and appreciate the arrogance and ignorance displayed by Senator Barack Obama, but folks, it appears he is going to do for Africa what George Bush has done for Iraq. Only worse. He is taking sides in a tribal war in Kenya that is on the verge of becoming a Rwanda-like genocide.
Really? Let's start with this uncomfortable fact. The leader of the
Kenyan Orange Democratic Movement opposition leader, Raila Odinga, is
Barack Obama's cousin. Barack may not put much stock in the
relationship, but tribal allegiances are still strong in Kenya and
Barack is clearly viewed as a Luo by his fellow tribesmen. Robert
Ethan reported recently Barack Obama has had a major impact on the recent disputed Kenyan election. He spoke in support of Orange Democratic Movement opposition leader Raila Odinga when in Kenya in 2006. The two men met last fall when Odinga visited America as each was preparing an "insurgency" campaign in their respective countries. In a recent BBC interview, Raila Odinga, averred that he and Obama were "old friends who spoke often on the telephone". Odinga also said that he and Obama were cousins, a claim that the Obama campaign was unwilling to acknowledge, (given Odinga's current difficulties) but did not deny. Great. Obama's cousin wants to be president. Is there a familial
gene? If you are like most Americans you are blissfully unaware that
two of Kenya's tribes –– the Luo and Kikuyu –– xare killing each other over
a disputed election that Odinga, Obama's cousin, claims was stolen
from him. This dispute has been accompanied by violence
A mob torched a church where hundreds had sought refuge Tuesday, and witnesses said dozens of people –– including children –– were burned alive or hacked to death with machetes in ethnic violence that followed Kenya's disputed election. Obama is not responsible for the killings in Kenya. But he has
shown shocking naivete in supporting his cousin, who in turn has been
quite eager to exploit the familial/tribal tie with Obama. Worse,
members of Obama's foreign policy team have helped fan the flames of
this mess. How? Are you sitting down? They got Dick Morris involved in
the election Former Clinton aides currently working for Obama were the "mutual acquaintances" who directed Dick Morris to Kenya to advise the Odinga campaign in November of 2007, shortly after Odinga visited with Obama in America. Morris was an extremely divisive factor in the Kenyan elections, as a foreigner, a white man, and the creator of an antagonistic "have vs. have nots" campaign platform for Odinga's ODM. He also suggested the current campaign of civil disobedience to protest the election result, including a "Million Person March", a la Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Obama also is providing the Republicans with the equivalent of an
ammunition dump for destroying his candidacy should he become the
nominee. The following articles are a preview of shit storm that will
be unleashed on Obama. (Glick: "The audacity of truth," Jerusalem
Post, January 22, 2008,
Daniel Johnson, "The Kenya Connection," January 10, 2008,
I can see the headline now, Obama's Commie Uncle. Democrats banking on Obama to bring a new Camelot to Washington need to pause and ask some tough questions. Their refusal to ask Obama about his familial ties in Kenya, about his foreign policy inexperience, and about his meddling in the Kenyan election, will eventually come up. There may be an innocent explanation for all of this. But sticking one' s head in the sand and hoping these uncomfortable issues go away is not a strategy for victory in November. Crystal is moderator of EUROPEANS_WHO_SUPPORT_ISRAEL@yahoogroups.com. Contact her at k_hallal@yahoo.com |
|
WHY I DON'T TRUST OBAMA
Posted by David Meir-Levi, June 11, 2008. |
|
Some have asked: why am I so suspicious of Obama, especially after that wonderful speech he gave at AIPAC on Wednesday (June 4, 2008). Here's why: I. HIS BIGGEST GAFFE EVER: Like all politicians, Obama has made numerous gaffes, some inconsequencial and some indicative but not definitive. But in his inspiringly pro-Israel speech last Wednesday to AIPAC, Obama made a gaffe which cannot go unnoticed, and is of a piece with his reversal about an undivided Jerusalem (see below II.E). At AIPAC last week, Obama laid out his pro-Israel vision in a compelling and believable way. He warmed the hearts of many Jews and Christian Zionists, and got an enthusiastic ovation from most of the audience. But some place in the middle, he made this curious statement, as reported in the New York Sun: "Let me be clear, Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper." Read that promise again!! "The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive." Does Obama not know that the Gaza Strip and West Bank cannot be made "contiguous and cohesive" unless Israel is made non-contiguous and non-cohesive? Does he not know that Arafat rejected President Clinton's "bridge plan" (Jan. 2000) which sought to create contiguity by building a bridge (a real bridge, on pylons, soaring many stories above Israeli land) from the north-east corner of the Gaza Strip to the south-west corner of the West Bank? Does he not know that the "two state solution," which has been the cornerstone of every USA strategy for resolution of the conflict, presupposed a non-contiguous Palestinian state? Does he not know that if there were contiguity (by bridge, land or tunnel) and Hamas operatives were free to enter the West Bank at will, there is very great likelihood that Abbas would be overthrown and Hamas would replace the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank, bringing its qassam rockets in range of Tel Aviv and some 65% of Israel's population? Or does he not know that both Israel and the Palestinian Authority consider that both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank must be part of the Palestinian state? The importance of this gaffe is underscored by the fact that this statement was NOT included in the reportorial account of his speech in the New York Times, nor is it revealed by a brief news search on Yahoo. These media outlets understand its significance and its potential embarrassment to Obama, and seek to remove it from public view. It is, however, confirmed in the actual transcripts of the Obama speech posted by such venues as National Public Radio, the Chicago Sun-Times, and others. Moreover, even if we ignore the issue of contiguity for either Israel or the Palestinian state (and it is an either-or), we still must conclude that Obama thinks that a state for the Palestinians will solve the problem: even as Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah and el-Qaeda and the PFLP and the DFLP and the PFLP-GC and the el-Aqsa Martrys' Brigade and Tanzim and Force 17 and the Resistance Committees and Ansar al-Islam and Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the Muslim Brotherhood and all the Palestinians who voted for Hamas and the Palestinians who continue to support Hamas even after its slaughter of Fatah Palestinians and Iran's Mullahs and Akhmedinejad and some unknowable other mass of Muslims around the world all tell us that a state for the Palestinians is not the issue –– the issue is the absolute and complete destruction of Israel. So, it seems to me that one must conclude that either Osama is
deeply and abysmally ignorant of the dynamics of the conflict (and for
more on that see below, section III), or he is aware of the real
dynamics and is simply lying to his Jewish constituency.
II. CHANGING HIS STORY TO SUIT THE CONSTITUENCY TO WHOM HE IS SPEAKING. A) re Revs Wright and Pflegler (and cf. note 1, at end of this essay, for critical evaluation of Obama's past associations with Wright and Pflegler) The first strategy for dealing with Rev. Wright's proclamations –– including damning America and offering baseless charges that the government was spreading AIDS among black people –– was to say he (Obama) was absent from church, and equating Wright with a crazy uncle to be found in most every family. Then he asked for a pass, saying that everyone has heard their pastor, priest or rabbi make statements they don't agree with. But the controversy continued, so he upped the ante and took on a new strategy with a major political speech on race relations –– a subject he'd avoided, to prevent being boxed in as the "black" candidate. The Philadelphia speech in March was most notable for what it did not do. Mr. Obama did not condemn Rev. Wright as a racial provocateur. Instead, he made it a point of virtue to stand by his minister of 20 years. He said Rev. Wright was a member of an older generation of black people still stung by their years of humiliation under segregation. But that speech didn't end the controversy, either –– because Mr. Obama never spoke honestly about Rev. Wright's sermons as destructive and racist. Instead he offered soaring talk about the nation, as a matter of faith in God and one another, needing to "move beyond old racial wounds." His only criticism of Rev. Wright was to chide him for a "profound mistake," of speaking "as if no progress had been made" on race. But the controversy still continued because he still remained a member of Rev. Wright's church. He tried to get around that by criticizing those who would "make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with [Rev. Wright's] most offensive words." But in a matter of weeks, Rev. Wright went on another rant, this time at the National Press Club in Washington. Only then did Obama condemn him for racially offensive jeremiads. And a week later, Father Pfleger –– with his mocking of Sen. Clinton and claims that whites all over America are crying because they feel a black man has stolen the nomination –– renewed the bitterness. His rant has also called a new round of attention to Obama's long ties to unsavory racial characters both inside and outside the church. In response, the senator finally resigned from the church.....but only after his own pastor put the lie to Obama's long list of excuses (8 different excuses, to be exact) for Wright's race-bating and hate-mongering.
But note the manner in which Obama resigned: "I'm not denouncing the church and I'm not interested in people who want me to denounce the church," he said, per MSNBC News, May 31, adding that the new pastor at Trinity and "the church have been suffering from the attention my campaign has focused on them." The news article went on to note that Obama said he and his wife have been discussing the issue since Wright's appearance at the National Press Club in Washington last month that reignited furor over remarks he had made in various sermons at the church. So his pastor exposes himself as a race-baiter and hate-monger, and demonstrates as accurate the assertions that he has used his pulpit for 20 years or more to preach hatred and racial divisiveness (which the Obamas supposedly never noticed for 20 years), but that does not merit any denunciation from Obama. Rather, his sympathies are for the church which has suffered from this obviously unwanted attention (attention to the fact that it has maintained in office a pastor who stands for the diametric opposite of everything that Obama says he stands for). His sympathies too are for Rev. Pflegler who is also now exposed as a white-skinned version of Rev. Wright. And speaking of Pflegler; in addition to giving $20,000 of Obama's own money to Jeremiah Wright, as a state senator Obama directed $225,000 of the Illinois taxpayers' money for programs run by Father Pfleger. In the U.S. Senate, Obama earmarked $100,000 in federal tax money for Father Pfleger's work. $325,000 makes it is obvious, therefore, that Obama's relationship to Pflegler and Pflegler's work is far more than just casual association. Finally, consider that resignation from this church is a topic of discussion for Obama only after Wright's appearance at the Press Club. The whole issue sounds like political pandering to me, with hedging and lying and minimizing in order to retain the allegiance of his power base in the church and its broader constituency....all of which Obama successfully did until the controversy got out of control, and then (and ONLY then) does he withdraw from the hat-mongering, race-baiting, conspiracy-theory-driven church and its pastors....while being sure to tell his black constituency that he has no condemnation for an institution characterized for 20 years by hate-mongering and race-baiting and anti-USA conspiracy theories. B.) Meeting with terror-supporting dictators: On various occasions, Obama pledged to meet personally and without precondition the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. He went on to explain that he would, during his very first year in office, meet personally with Iranian President Ahmadinejad ("we'll nuke Israel and wipe it off the map") and Venezuela dictator Hugo Chávez (Iran's new ally and client, within missile range of USA cities from Sarasota to San Diego). But criticism of the naivete of these statements made Obama backpedal, talking about needing "some progress or some indication of good faith." But there were some crossed signals among his staff, and some of his foreign policy advisers were (falsely) denying that he had ever said he'd meet with Mr. Ahmadinejad –– even as he still defended his original pledge to have meetings without precondition. C.) New hard line with Iran at AIPAC speech At the AIPAC conference he stated that he was in favor of designating the Iranian Guards as a terrorist organization; but last September he skipped out on the vote to the Kyl-Liebermann Amendment to designate them as such. He justified his stand on this issue by saying that such an amendment would empower Bush to attack Iran. Moreover, in the recent past he has been disparaging of the Iran threat, saying that Iran is just "a small country," not like the Soviet Union. He does not seem to notice that the people who flew planes into the World Trade Center were an even smaller group than the Iranian government. Then, in a breath-taking turn-around, at AIPAC he clearly implied that a military option is indeed on the table, and he spoke of tough diplomacy, even suggesting the boycott of firms associated with the Iranian Guards. However, he gave no idea just what that tough diplomacy might look like. D.) Flip-flop on Iraq: At the AIPAC conference he said he is for "phased withdrawal from Iraq," but in previous speeches he urged immediate withdrawal. E.) Jerusalem as undivided capitol of Israel: In his AIPAC speech Obama said he would provide unconditional support for Israel and make sure that Jerusalem would remain Israel's undivided capital. It took only one day for the flip-flop. After much flack from Arab sources, a campaign advisor clarified that Obama sees Jerusalem as a final status issue and as such must be negotiated between the two parties (so that means that it can be divided). When queried by CNN, Obama said he was misunderstood. "Well," Obama explained, "obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations." (so that means that it can be divided). This latter position is consistent with advice from his Middle East advisor, Daniel Kurtzer (see below, V.7), former Ambassador to Israel, who told Ha'Aretz in May that Obama considers it impossible to make progress on serious peace talks without putting the future of Jerusalem on the table. So, somehow, in a manner as yet unexplained and contrary to common sense and history, Obama thinks that Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of Israel even as it becomes an agenda item on final status negotiations during which it is clear that the Palestinian side will claim part of it for their capitol –– as though its becoming the capitol of a Palestinian state can be achieved without dividing it. For details see: Jerusalem Post, Jun 6, 2008, "Obama
clarifies united J'lem comment."
Additionally confusing is the fact that the USA, and other western powers, currently do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (hence no USA embassy in Jerusalem). Does Obama not know that the USA has never recognized Jerusalem as the legal capital of Israel, and has never recognized the legality of Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem following the 6-day war, or does he plan to move the USA embassy to Jerusalem? F.) No negotiations with some terrorists, but OK with others: Obama has made negotiations with Iran, without preconditions, an important part of his campaign. Yet in his AIPAC speech he said he would not negotiate with Hamas ("We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements"). But wait, does he not know that Iran is the leading terror state in the world (now that Iraq has been bumped from that position) and is the mentor-state for Hezbollah and is supplying Hamas with money and arms? So why will he refuse to negotiate with Hamas unless and until it takes certain pre-condition steps, but will agree to negotiate with Hamas' (and Hezbollah's) benefactor terror state whose Mullahs and president are pulling the terrorist strings of their puppet proxies? III.OBAMA'S FOREIGN POLICY AND MIDDLE EAST INEXPERIENCE(*)(and cf. note #2 at the bottom of this essay, for Joe Lieberman's assessment of Obama's foreign policy) In sharp contrast to John McCain (Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 25 years as a solidly pro-Israel Congressman/Senator) –– and even compared to Hillary Clinton who has amassed a solid record –– Obama is perceived as a foreign-policy novice. Senator Obama has been in the Senate barely three years and two of which he has been running for President. While foreign policy experience may not have seemed that important in the elections of 1992, 1996, and 2000 (America's so-called "holiday from history"), in the post-9/11 world, its importance is paramount. Especially regarding the Middle East, foreign policy miscalculations can be lethal. Perhaps the most disturbing manifestation of this inexperience is what appears to be his rather naïve approach to enemies of the United States and Israel: Following President Bush's Knesset speech, Obama's oft-repeated promise to meet America's enemies without preconditions during his first year in office has become a topic de jour. Obama also continues to promise, in essence, to immediately begin unilateral withdrawal of American troops from Iraq –– without regard to the risks posed to any post-surge progress achieved in the improved Iraqi military and political situations. % Democrats in Israel fear that Obama is naïve and overly solicitous of hostile –– even genocidal –– Arab and Muslim dictatorships. There is also fear that a similarly unserious attitude is pervasive within Obama's wing of the Democrat Party. In the past year, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former President Jimmy Carter paid high-profile visits to Syrian dictator Bashar Assad and Hamas leaders, respectively. The impotence of both missions, which bestowed upon their hosts precious credibility and prestige, undermined attempts at diplomatic isolation and achieved nothing in return. These rogue diplomatic failures illustrate the dangerously misguided nature of Obama's pledge to unconditionally meet with the world's worst terror states. To his credit, Obama has so far rejected meeting with Hamas; but he makes no coherent distinction between his willingness, even eagerness, to meet with one government (Iran) which swears to wipe Israel off the map, and his refusal to meet with others (Hamas, Hezbollah) which swear to wipe Israel off the map. Also interesting to note in this context, that Obama's major
supporter and co-chair of his campaign, Sen. Robert Wexler (Florida,
democrat), when interviewed on CNN, could not name one piece of
significant legislation that Obama initiated during his short tenure
in Congress
IV. THE HAMAS "ENDORSEMENT" OF OBAMA(*): Now, we (Jerusalem Post writers and DML) don't for a minute believe that Obama has anything but contempt for Hamas. But it's hard to even imagine a Hamas endorsement of John McCain. What does it say about Obama's policies and history that he can be the preferred candidate of a movement whose entire animating purpose is to destroy Israel? In a similar vein, a recent Keevoon poll of Israeli Arabs found Obama to be their preferred choice by an 11-point margin. (Keevoon polls show that Jewish Israelis prefer Clinton to Obama by a whopping 61% to 12%, and McCain over Obama by better than a two-to-one margin [DML: and note also recent Palestinian endorsements for Obama: Palestinians Phonebank for Obama*
A television news segment produced by Al-Jazeera shows
Palestinians in Gaza engaging in phone banking activities for
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama
The segment explains how young Palestinians have banded together to call American voters at random asking them to vote for Obama. "It all started at the time of the US primaries," says one of pro-Obama Palestinian organizers. "After studying Obama's electro campaign manifesto I thought this is a man that's capable of change inside of America. As for potential change in the Middle East, he can also do that if he can bring peace to the area. At least this is what we hope." Townhall was tipped off to the video by American Spectator's Phillip Klein, who wrote Tuesday "It's been around, but I'm just now seeing this Al Jazeera report of Palestinians in Gaza phone-banking for Obama. I hear that Hamas, which has endorsed Obama, has a bit of influence in those parts." Ahmed Yousef, a political adviser of the anti-Israel terrorist group Hamas said Hamas supports Obama last Sunday. "We don't mind –– actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance," Yousef said in an interview on WABC radio. In recent days, Obama's position on the Isreali-Palestinian
conflict has been scrutinized. One of his Middle East advisers,
Robert Malley, resigned over the weekend after reporters found
Malley had met with Hamas V. THE COMPANY OBAMA KEEPS(*): The concerns begin with Obama's long association with his America and Israel bashing pastor, but they extend way beyond that. 1. Reverend Jeremiah Wright, already discussed in a variety of
venues and cf. above, II.A.
Obama also counts a disturbing and apparently growing number of vocally harsh Israel-critics as high-profile or low-profile advisors on his campaign staff. In September of 2007 Newsweek published a list of Senator Obama's foreign policy advisers that included Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Malley. A few weeks later, the Washington Post on October 2, 2007 published a list of foreign policy advisers for all the major candidates, which list included the names of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Malley, Samantha Power and Susan Rice as advisers to Senator Obama. Subsequently, Martin Peretz –– an Obama supporter –– wrote at the end of December that he got the "shudders" when thinking about the foreign policy influence of "Zbigniew Brzezinski... Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Robert O. Malley". 3. While some sources discount the degree to which Zbigniew
Brzezinski is an active advisor for Obama, given Brzezinski' s 30
years of anti-Israel pontification and agitation [Brzezinski is well
known for his aggressive dislike of Israel. He has been an ardent foe
of Israel for over three decades and newspaper files are littered with
his screeds against Israel. Brzezinski has publicly defended the
Walt-Mearsheimer thesis that the relationship between America and
Israel is based not on shared values and common threats but is the
product of Jewish pressure. Brzezinski also signed a letter demanding
dialogue with Hamas. After Hezbollah launched attacks against Israel
in the summer of 2006, murdered Israelis and took hostages, Israel
tried to get its citizens back by moving into Lebanon. Warfare
resulted. Brzezinski wrote that Israel's actions amounted to the
"killing of hostages" (the hostages being Lebanese caught in the
battles).
Obama's contacts with Brzezinski, however informal, raise concerns among pro-Israel groups. And note the conflicting reports about just how formal or informal the relationship is. It is clear that Brzezinski backs Obama since mid 2007 But then note the more recent CBS News article of May 28, 2008, "Obama And Brzezinski –– Ill-Suited And Sending A Mixed Message To Jews" by Bonnie Erbe (US News) If Sen. Barack Obama wants to make nice-nice with the Jewish community, the last person he should be allowing to make public proclamations about Jews, no matter how tenuous that person's connection to the Obama presidential campaign, is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski, who was President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, has long been viewed suspiciously by American Jews. So we (or at least I) really can't tell yet whether the Washington Post comment about "..they just had lunch" is real, or is what Obama's campaign folks know is what the Jewish voters need to hear. 4. Robert Malley, a long time critic of Israel and supporter of Palestinian demands, resigned from Obama's campaign after it was acknowledged that he had repeated secret meetings with Hamas leaders. Malley was part of the American negotiating team that dealt with Yasser Arafat at Camp David. He has presented a revisionist history of those negotiations blaming Israel for the summit's failure. His version is radically at odds with the views of Americans and Israelis (including Dennis Ross, Bill Clinton, and Bandar bin Sultan). He has spent years representing the Palestinian point of view, co-writing a series of anti-Israel articles with Hussein Agha-a former Arafat adviser and Palestinian advocate. These have appeared in the New York Review of Books. His writings have been so critical of Israel that the media-monitoring group CAMERA has a "dossier" on him. (CAMERA also has a listing for Brzezinski). 5. Former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi. As a paid director of the non-profit Woods Fund, Obama funneled $75,000 in grants to the Arab American Action Network, run by Khalidi's wife, Mona, which refers to Israel's creation as the Nakba (catastrophe). Khalidi has written, taught and lectured (Columbia Univ.) that Israel has carried out the "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians; that Israel should be replaced by a bi-national, cantonal system for Jews and Arabs; and that suicide bombings are a response to "Israeli aggression". Obama has said he merely had "conversations" with Khalidi. But reports say the Khalidi and Obama families are long-standing friends. In 2000, Khalidi raised funds for Obama's failed bid for a seat in the US House of Representatives. And according to the Los Angeles Times, Obama said his talks with the Khalidis served as "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases... a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table ... (but around) ... this entire world". 6. Obama has additional connections to the Palestinian nationalist community. On his popular pro-Palestinian website, Electronic Intifada, Palestinian activist Ali Abunimah recounted meeting Obama at numerous Palestinian/Arab community events at which, according to Abunimah, Obama called for a more "even-handed" policy regarding Israel. At one such 2004 dinner, Abunimah "went up to greet [Obama]. He responded warmly, and volunteered, 'Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.' He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, 'Keep up the good work!' " Here is the Abunima article: (Published in Campus Watch).
I first met Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama almost ten years ago when, as my representative in the Illinois state senate, he came to speak at the University of Chicago. He impressed me as progressive, intelligent and charismatic. I distinctly remember thinking 'if only a man of this calibre could become president one day.' Over the years since I first saw Obama speak I met him about half a dozen times, often at Palestinian and Arab-American community events in Chicago including a May 1998 community fundraiser at which Edward Said was the keynote speaker. In 2000, when Obama unsuccessfully ran for Congress I heard him speak at a campaign fundraiser hosted by a University of Chicago professor. On that occasion and others Obama was forthright in his criticism of US policy and his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. (DML: so when speaking to Jews he is enthusiastically pro-Israel and supportive of Israeli defensive efforts. But when speaking in Said's company, he is more "even handed" and critical of the USA's putative pro-Israel policy) The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing. As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!" (DML: so, by his own admission to Abunimah, he has not been "up front." Up front about what? What can he mean by this remark to Ali Abunimah? Seems to me that he has just said that his support for Israel has been a "front" and he can be more honest ["up front"] once he is elected. So his support for Israel is a dishonest ploy to get elected!) But Obama's gradual shift into the AIPAC camp had begun as early as 2002 as he planned his move from small time Illinois politics to the national scene. In 2003, Forward reported on how he had "been courting the pro-Israel constituency." He co-sponsored an amendment to the Illinois Pension Code allowing the state of Illinois to lend money to the Israeli government. Among his early backers was Penny Pritzker –– now his national campaign finance chair –– scion of the liberal but staunchly Zionist family that owns the Hyatt hotel chain. (The Hyatt Regency hotel on Mount Scopus was built on land forcibly expropriated from Palestinian owners after Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967). He has also appointed several prominent pro-Israel advisors. Obama has also been close to some prominent Arab Americans, and has received their best advice. His decisive trajectory reinforces a lesson that politically weak constituencies have learned many times: meaningful campaign finance reform, whispering in the ears of politicians will have little impact. (For what it's worth, I did my part. I recently met with Obama's legislative aide, and wrote to Obama urging a more balanced policy towards Palestine.) If disappointing, given his historically close relations to Palestinian-Americans, Obama's about-face is not surprising. He is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected and he will continue doing it as long as it keeps him in power. (DML: so, according to Ali Abunimah, Osama uses a pro-Israel stand in order to get elected. Do, then, his "..historically close relations to Palestinian-Americans..." tell us something about what he will do once in power?). [DML: Re the Ali Abunimah article, recall that this is merely one person's recollection of an incident that occurred years earlier. There is no corroboration for it ... but neither has Obama denied it (as far as I know). Moreover, Abunimah lies about Israeli and Arab actions; so maybe he is lying about Obama too. Although it is difficult to find a motive for such a lie. On the other hand, since in this article Abunimah makes the amazing statement that Obama told Abunimah personally that Obama was not being "up front" about his support for Israel, due to the exigencies of the campaign (i.e., he was lying about his support for Israel in order to get Jewish votes), and that he would be more "up front" once he was elected (i.e., will do more to support the Palestinians), the absence of a denial from Obama is quite concerning.] (* The above asterisked sections are based upon an article in the Jerusalem Post, June 2, 2008 by Kory Bardash, co-chair Republicans Abroad Israel and Abe Katsman, counsel to Republicans Abroad Israel. This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1212041458169& pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull 7. And then there is Daniel Kurtzer. Obama adviser: Divide Jerusalem 8. Samantha Power: No longer with Obama's campaign
because of derogatory remarks she made about Mrs. Clinton, Power has
a long history of anti-Israel sentiments expressed in a variety of
milieux. For an in-depth analysis of Power's anti-Israel animus, cf.
9. George Soros: As Obama took steps toward the United States Senate he found a very powerful sugar daddy who helped fund his rise: George Soros. The billionaire hedge fund titan began supporting Obama very early and even found a loophole that allowed him and assorted family members to exceed regular limits on campaign contributions. Soros is also a fierce foe of Israel, for years funding groups that have worked against Israel. He is also a man who has flexed his political muscle as a major funder of Democrat candidates and a slew of so-called 527 groups that are active in pushing their agendas (a reliance on international institutions, defeat of Republicans, Bush-bashing, Israel-bashing). He has also openly proclaimed his desire to break the bonds between America and Israel and has written of his desire to erode political support for Israel. Soros also called for concessions to Hamas. When Soros' support for Hamas came to light, some leading Democrats personally denounced Soros; Obama had a spokesman issue this rather bland statement: "Mr. Soros is entitled to his opinions," a campaign spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, said. "But on this issue he and Senator Obama disagree. This mild reproach did not prevent Obama from appearing a few weeks later with George Soros at a fundraiser. 10. A fundraiser was held at the home of Allan Houston, formerly of the Knicks, and a man who had previously very publicly proclaiming that Jews had Jesus' "blood on their hands" and were "stubborn". The American Jewish Congress protested and noted that Obama would not take any money from someone who had expressed the same sort of remarks about African-Americans. The very same spokesman who addressed the Soros controversy blithely dismissed the concerns of the Jews and said the campaign would not return the money or reject any of the contributions made by Houston. 11. Scott Lasensky has also been appointed a foreign policy adviser to Obama. His views on Israel are well known. He and Dan Kurtzer have faulted H. W. Bush and Baker for inadequately derailing the pro-Israel lobby. He has called for Hamas to be brought into the "peace process," and referred to residents of Israeli settlements as "obstructionists." He has been given the stamp of approval by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, a notoriously harsh anti-Israel group. He was also used by CNN's Christiane Amanpour to castigate Israel in her widely criticized CNN's Jewish Warriors "documentary" –– a documentary that has been heavily criticized for its bias and factual errors); and he was hosted by the anti-Israel activist group Brit Tzedek v'Shalom and will be hosted by the anti-Israel Americans for Peace Now, both of which groups have been highly critical of Israel over the years. The group for which he works, the Unites States Institute of Peace, was the key organizer of the Iraq Study Group that produced a report (the Baker-Hamilton report) that has very troubling recommendations concerning Israel, Iraq, Iran and American policy in the Middle East. (I am indebted to
12. One of the newest members of the Obama team is Rep. David Bonior who will be represented the Obama campaign at the Democratic National Committee meeting in Washington, D.C., according to an announcement by the Barack Obama campaign for president. As a Congressman, David Bonior was known for his strong opposition to pro-Israel policies, with editor [and Israel Insider columnist] Jonathan Tobin calling him "the biggest supporter of the anti-Israel Arab lobby in Congress." In a press release the Republican Jewish Coalition pointed to a disturbing pattern in Obama's appointments: "Barack Obama's path to strengthening ties with the Jewish community is severely blocked when appointing an anti-Israel figure like David Bonior. While in Congress, Bonior refused to stand by Israel after repeated terrorist attacks, and was known as a stalwart opponent to Israel. During his Congressional career, David Bonior repeatedly opposed pro-Israel legislation. In 1997, David Bonior was one of 15 Congressmen who signed a letter asking then-President Clinton to pressure Israelis into making concessions to the Palestinians. In 2002, David Bonior was one of only 21 Congressmen who opposed H.R. 392, which publicly affirmed Congress's support of Israel's right to self-defense and called for the dismantling of the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure. In 1990, David Bonior was one of only 34 Congressman to vote against a measure naming Jerusalem as the united capital of Israel. In 1989, Bonior was one of six House members to vote against a bill that prevented US funds from going to UN entities that granted the PLO membership. Throughout his career, Bonior repeatedly opposed US aid to Israel and supported arms sales to Arab states opposed to Israel's existence. (#12 is based upon http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12883.htm) 13. Conversely, Obama actively opposed the nomination of John Bolton as our Ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton's track record in support of Israel is impressive. As Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Bolton took started a new project, the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI),that has played a very important role in preventing hostile nations (including those in the Arab world) from developing weapons of mass destruction. Boats were interdicted on the high seas, for example, when suspicions arose that they carried suspect cargoes. The PSI was also responsible for helping to put an end to Libya's nuclear program, which led to the unraveling of the A.Q. Khan nuclear weapons black market that has imperiled our friends in the region (and ourselves). While at the United Nations, Bolton was a stalwart defender of American interests and those of our allies. He was also a firm supporter of Israel (next to Patrick Moynihan, probably one of the best) –– a thankless task given the pervasive anti-Israel bias at the UN. So why did Obama oppose him? 14. General Anthony McPeak may be an illustrative exception to the
above #s 1-12. On one hand, McPeak suggested in a recent newspaper
interview that there is undue Israeli and American Jewish influence on
American government. But as David Baram points out in the Jewish
Ledger ("Don't question Obama's commitment to Israel," By David A.
Baram, Thursday, April 10, 2008 9:20 PM EDT,
:....Presidential candidates have many advisors. From time to time advisors make mistakes or express positions that are antithetical to the beliefs of their candidates. The faux pas of a supporter or advisor doesn't mean that the candidate agrees with their statement. Hillary Clinton had to distance herself from remarks of former President Bill Clinton, Geraldine Ferrarro, and her campaign strategist Mark Penn (asked to leave the campaign due to a conflict of interest). John McCain too, is not immune to this problem. Most recently McCain took issue with statements by his supporters Minister John Hagee and Radio talk show host Bill Cunningham. Barack Obama has refuted comments by Reverend Wright, Samantha Power and General McPeak. In the complex world of Presidential Politics, it is important to distinguish a surrogate's comment from the convictions of the candidate. It might be instructive to look more closely at Sam Schulman's criticism in last week's Ledger about comments made by Obama advisor General Anthony McPeak. At age 72, General McPeak has been known to be acerbic on occasion. His knowledge of military strategy and his military honors however, are irrefutable. His role in the Obama campaign is based upon military experience and his opposition to the Iraqi war. McPeak apologized for his comment suggesting undue influence of American-Jews on U.S. policy toward Israel. In an article recently published in Foreign Affairs, General McPeak identified himself as a "friend" and "admirer" of Israel. The General recalled his involvement during the 1970's working with his Israeli counterparts. He said, "But for friends like me, 'success' means a secure Israel at peace with neighbors who recognize and respect its existence." The article confirms that General McPeak considers Israel an ally and partner. In looking at McPeak's military career and his close cooperation with the Israeli military, there is no reason to conclude that he is anti-Semitic based upon one ill-spoken response to a reporter. " In light of all of the above, it seems obvious that Obama has gone to considerable lengths to surround himself with advisors most of whom have long-standing animus toward Israel. It can be argued that a few of the above are no longer on Obama's list of advisors; however, their departure seems to have been due more to their becoming a source of embarrassment to Obama rather than to conflicts in political priorities. It can also be argued that there are advisors such as Dennis Ross and Daniel Wexler who appear to be pro-Israel; but one must then ask about the imbalance in numbers (far more anti- than pro- or neutral regarding Israel). And there are those who have made the argument that some, like Brzezinski or McPeak, represent areas of influence which will not intrude on Obama's decisions about Israel; but it seems a bit naïve to assume that high-powered advisors with decades of experience in international affairs will not make known their views in areas tangential or closely related to their own areas of expertise, or will not seek to influence Obama with those areas. In addition to which, military expertise will certainly play an important role in assessing the Arab-Israel conflict, as will foreign policy experience of a general nature....so even if McPeak and Brzezinski are merely tangential to the Arab-Israel issue, it is very likely that Obama will solicit their input for that issue even though it is not their specific area of expertise. The above is not 'guilt by association,' as some have suggested
(for an example of real guilt by association, and as such has no
bearing on the issues discussed here, cf. When Obama tells us that his views are antithetical to those of so many of his advisors, as he did implicitly at the AIPAC conference, one must ask: then why are they advising him? Or, one must ask: is he just telling his Jewish audiences what he knows they want to hear, but has every intention of relying upon the advice of those chosen advisors, once he is elected?
VI. IT LOOKS LIKE OBAMA IS LEGALLY DISQUALIFIED FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT: Under current law, Presidential office requires a natural-born
citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. Citizen parents (which
means that McCain does qualify since although he was born in the
Panama Canal Zone, he was born of two U.S. citizen parents). If only
one parent was a U.S. Citizen at the time of your birth, that parent
must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at
least five of which had to be after the age of 16 (cf:
Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. Citizen so he fails the test. Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, she fails the test of being so for at least 5 years prior to Barack Obama's birth, but after age 16. She was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. ... and she was only 18!! Was Obama ever naturalized? It does not matter. Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President. Obama's candidacy seems to be a violation of U.S. Election law.
And note the National Review On-Line commentary (Monday,
June 9) on this and related issues.
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/04/17/
The birth certificate release would put an end to the rumor
that Obama was born in Kenya (highly unlikely, and cf:
It would also clear up the mystery of why Barry Obama became Barak
Obama, and when, and how (and cf. "When Barry Became Barack,
VII. LEGALITY OF HIS VICTORY IN THE PRIMARIES IS IN DOUBT When Al Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election by half a percentage point, but lost the Electoral College vote (the constitutionally prescribed method for choosing presidents) much of the press and various pundits proclaimed that Bush had not really won. Hence the anti-Bush/pro-Gore slogan: Bush was selected, not elected. But now Hillary has won the popular vote in a Democratic primary, while Obama has won under the rules. In a spectacular turnabout, media commentators support Obama's victory even though Hillary won the popular vote. The Democratic primary now is similar to the situation in 2000, with Hillary in the position of Gore and Obama in the position of Bush. Party primaries are specifically designed by the parties to choose their strongest candidate for the general election. Hillary's argument that she won the popular vote is manifestly relevant to that determination. But taking a position which is diametrically opposite to that which they took in 2000, much of the mainstream press supports Obama. Why the reversal? Bottom line: too many flip-flops, too many nasty advisors, too many gaffes that offer either evidence of abysmal ignorance or evidence of good old-fashioned lying, too little experience, too little expertise, too many friends who want to see Israel destroyed....too many red flags....and then there are the legal questions. End Notes (1) From II.A: update on Obama's ties to Wright and Pflegler Who Is Obama? Where Is The Press?
[..] "So Obama's political interest in Trinity went far beyond merely gaining a respectable public Christian identity. On his own account, Obama hoped to use the untapped power of the black church to supercharge hard-left politics in Chicago, creating a personal and institutional political base that would be free to part with conventional Democratic politics. By his own testimony, Obama would seem to have allied himself with Wright and Pfleger, not in spite of, but precisely because of their radical left-wing politics. It follows that Obama's ties to Trinity reflect on far more than his judgment and character (although they certainly implicate that). Contrary to common wisdom, then, Obama's religious history has everything to do with his political values and policy positions, since it confirms his affinity for leftist radicalism." Now, given how much the media has covered both the Pfleger and Wright matters, when a respectable journal, such as National Review, runs an article by a journalist of established credibility, such as Stanley Kurtz, that suggests a different and far more disturbing interpretation of Obama's relationships with Wright and Pfleger, a responsible mainstream media would seek out Obama and, at the minimum, ask him whether the things the 1995 De Sutter article quotes him as saying are, in fact, things he said. They might even ask him to explain himself. Because if the 1995 article is an accurate reflection of what Obama said, then most of what he has said in the past few months about the Wright affair and Trinity United Church of Christ could not continue to be viewed as believable. [...] Tony Blankley is executive vice president of Edelman public relations in Washingto "Obama's Radical-Left Ties Broad And Deep"
by Stanley Kurtz.
Having now left Trinity United Church of Christ, can Barack Obama escape responsibility for his decades-long ties to Michael Pfleger and Jeremiah Wright? No, he cannot. Obama's connections to the radical-left politics espoused by Pfleger and Wright are broad and deep. The real reason Obama bound himself to Wright and Pfleger in the first place is that he largely approved of their political-theological outlooks. [..] So Obama's political interest in Trinity went far beyond merely gaining a respectable public Christian identity. On his own account, Obama hoped to use the untapped power of the black church to supercharge hard-left politics in Chicago, creating a personal and institutional political base that would be free to part with conventional Democratic politics. By his own testimony, Obama would seem to have allied himself with Wright and Pfleger, not in spite of, but precisely because of their radical left-wing politics. It follows that Obama's ties to Trinity reflect on far more than his judgment and character (although they certainly implicate that). Contrary to common wisdom, then, Obama's religious history has everything to do with his political values and policy positions, since it confirms his affinity for leftist radicalism. [..] OBAMA SPEAKS If there is any doubt about the accuracy of De Zutter's detailed account, we get the same message from this too-little discussed but revealing and important piece by Obama himself. The chapter from a 1990 book called "After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois" was originally published in 1988, just after Obama joined Trinity. The piece is called, "Why Organize? Problems and Promise in the Inner City," and it shows exactly what Obama hoped to make of his association with Pfleger and Wright. Obama begins by rejecting the false dichotomy between radicalism and moderation: [..] Obama sketches out a vision in which a politically awakened black church would ally with "community organizers" (like Obama and his friends from Acorn), thereby radicalizing the politics of America's cities: [..] MYSTERY SOLVED So it would appear that Obama's own writings solve the mystery of why he stayed at Trinity for 20 years. Obama's long-held and decidedly audacious hope has been to spread Wright's radical spirit by linking it to a viable, left-leaning political program, with Obama himself at the center. The revolutionizing power of a politically awakened black church is not some side issue, or merely a personal matter, but has been the signature theme of Obama's grand political strategy. Lucky for Obama, this political background is unfamiliar to most Americans. There are others who share Obama's approach, however. Take a look at this piece by Manhattan Institute scholar Steven Malanga on "The Rise Of The Religious Left" and you will see exactly where Obama is coming from. Malanga ends his account by noting that religious-left activists often partner with groups like MoveOn.org and attend gatherings featuring speakers like Michael Moore. After the 2004 election, there was some talk of the Democratic party "purging" MoveOn and Moore. Far from purging its radical Left, however, the Democratic party is now just inches away from placing it in the driver' s seat. That is the real meaning of the fiasco at Trinity Church. "OBAMA, organizing the big community" (circa 1995)
(2) From III above, Wall Street Journal, May 21, 2008 Dow Jones Reprints
How did the Democratic Party get here? How did the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy drift so far from the foreign policy and national security principles and policies that were at the core of its identity and its purpose? Beginning in the 1940s, the Democratic Party was forced to confront two of the most dangerous enemies our nation has ever faced: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. In response, Democrats under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy forged and conducted a foreign policy that was principled, internationalist, strong and successful. This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in –– a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders. It was a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we would fall divided. This was the Democratic Party of Harry Truman, who pledged that "it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." And this was the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy, who promised in his inaugural address that the United States would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom." This worldview began to come apart in the late 1960s, around the war in Vietnam. In its place, a very different view of the world took root in the Democratic Party. Rather than seeing the Cold War as an ideological contest between the free nations of the West and the repressive regimes of the communist world, this rival political philosophy saw America as the aggressor –– a morally bankrupt, imperialist power whose militarism and "inordinate fear of communism" represented the real threat to world peace. It argued that the Soviets and their allies were our enemies not because they were inspired by a totalitarian ideology fundamentally hostile to our way of life, or because they nursed ambitions of global conquest. Rather, the Soviets were our enemy because we had provoked them, because we threatened them, and because we failed to sit down and accord them the respect they deserved. In other words, the Cold War was mostly America's fault. Of course that leftward lurch by the Democrats did not go unchallenged. Democratic Cold Warriors like Scoop Jackson fought against the tide. But despite their principled efforts, the Democratic Party through the 1970s and 1980s became prisoner to a foreign policy philosophy that was, in most respects, the antithesis of what Democrats had stood for under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy. Then, beginning in the 1980s, a new effort began on the part of some of us in the Democratic Party to reverse these developments, and reclaim our party's lost tradition of principle and strength in the world. Our band of so-called New Democrats was successful sooner than we imagined possible when, in 1992, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were elected. In the Balkans, for example, as President Clinton and his advisers slowly but surely came to recognize that American intervention, and only American intervention, could stop Slobodan Milosevic and his campaign of ethnic slaughter, Democratic attitudes about the use of military force in pursuit of our values and our security began to change. This happy development continued into the 2000 campaign, when the Democratic candidate –– Vice President Gore –– championed a freedom-focused foreign policy, confident of America's moral responsibilities in the world, and unafraid to use our military power. He pledged to increase the defense budget by $50 billion more than his Republican opponent –– and, to the dismay of the Democratic left, made sure that the party's platform endorsed a national missile defense. By contrast, in 2000, Gov. George W. Bush promised a "humble foreign policy" and criticized our peacekeeping operations in the Balkans. Today, less than a decade later, the parties have completely switched positions. The reversal began, like so much else in our time, on September 11, 2001. The attack on America by Islamist terrorists shook President Bush from the foreign policy course he was on. He saw September 11 for what it was: a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of life. If the Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11. Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy –– not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush –– activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years. Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign. In this, Sen. Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right –– regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it. John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have become confused about lately –– the difference between America's friends and America's enemies. There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments. Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet. Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot. If a president ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would strengthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies. A great Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, once warned "no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies." This is a lesson that today's Democratic Party leaders need to relearn. Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut. This article is adapted from a speech he gave May 18 at a dinner hosted by Commentary magazine. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121132806884008847.html
David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli,
currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern
studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director
of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org).
Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com
|
|
TOP IRANIAN MULLAHS CORRUPT, OFFICIAL SAYS
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 11, 2008. |
|
This is by Kenneth R. Timmerman and it appeared yesterday in Newsmax. |
|
A senior official with Iran's Parliamentary Investigations committee, Abbas Palizar, has accused top regime mullahs of widespread corruption in a videotaped presentation to students at Hamedan University. Palizar accused leading clerics of using a variety of schemes to skim hundreds of millions of dollars from the central government treasury, and when questioned by the students, he named names. He called the regime's judiciary branch "the center of economic corruption." Judiciary chief Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahrudi was appointed by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in 1999, and remains a close ally of the leader, making an attack on him extremely sensitive. Palizar said the judiciary and the State Inspectorate Organization had refused to cooperate with the Majles (parliament) investigations into corruption, and had put its members on "forced leave" to prevent them from giving testimony. It took over a year for Palizar and his investigators to access the files on the numerous corruption investigations that were closed without prosecution. But what he found was stunning, he said. "One of these clerics came and said that he had a disabled son and wanted to build a physical therapy center where he could be treated. So we registered the center for him. "Then he asked for financial support, and demanded that we give him the license to operate the Dehbid stone quarry in Fars province, a company that has the some of the best marble in the world. After that, he said this was not enough, and he asked for a license to operate another quarry in Zanjan province. Now he operates four quarries and a physical therapy center." Palizar was reluctant to name the cleric, but when students pressed him, he identified him as Ayatollah Mohammad Emami-Kashani, a prominent member of the Council of Guardians and one of four temporary Friday prayer leaders in Tehran. Another ayatollah went to Khamenei, Palizar said, and said he wanted to build a law university for women in Qom. After receiving a license, he then asked to be given the Dena Tire company, a state-owned firm with a market value estimated at $600 million. The ayatollah was directed to the minister of Industries, Mohammad-Reza Nematzadeh, who offered to sell him the company for the discounted price of $126 million. "Soon these gentlemen were asking for [greater] discounts, and eventually settled for 10 billion Toman [around $10 million]," Palizar said. "But then they said that they did not have the money and so would pay 80 percent of the price in installments." Even this scheme turned out to be beyond the ayatollah's means, so he asked to be given title to the company, sell off some of the buildings, then pay the 20 percent with the proceeds. "So as easy as that, the ayatollah took ownership of the factory and then sold it off on the stock market" at a handsome profit, Palizar said. Again, the students demanded that Palizar name the cleric, and he blurted out: "ayatollah Yazdi." Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi, the former head of the Judiciary, is also a member of the Council of Guardians and the Assembly of Experts, the group that is responsible for naming the supreme leader. Most recently, he was named head of the faculty of the Qom Theological Seminary, the most important center for hard-line clerics in Iran. The Dena Tire company wasn't Ayatollah Yazdi's only payoff, Palizar revealed. He also wrote to the minister of Industries asking that his unemployed son, Hamid, be given control over the lucrative timber exports from the Caspian forests. "At the time, Hamid Yazdi was a director of the Judiciary; in other words, he wasn't even out of work," Palizar told the students. "Thus he plundered the Caspian forests. And then they went and arrested the local people who had perhaps stored only enough wood for their fireplace," he added. The arrests led to "protests outside the prisons." Most of Palizar's revelations would appear aimed at the supreme leader himself, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This can be dangerous business in Iran. In recent months, Khamenei has been seeking to put distance between himself and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose firebrand verbal assaults on Israel and the United States have alarmed many European leaders. Ahmadinejad was elected in 2005 on a campaign of cracking down on corruption, but has done little to expose or stop the clerical elites from pillaging the resources of the state. Palizar, considered an ally of the Iranian president, appears to be stepping up to the plate as a surrogate, just as Ahmadinejad's relations with the supreme leader are on the wane. Many observers believe that Khamenei will dump Ahmadinejad next spring, when his first four-year term as president is up. Some see the election as a sign of change. Parliament speaker Ali Larijani –– a strong Ahmadinejad critic –– thinks the president's political troubles have caused him harm. "Ahmadinejad has never been particularly respectful towards the clerics; he thinks that his fellow revolutionaries have a better grasp of true Islam than do the clerics," said Patrick Clawson, deputy research director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "Since he can speak directly to the hidden imam, what does he need clerics for? And Ahmadinejad is so arrogant that he takes on the world all at once. So he has declared war on the senior clerics –– not a clever move," Clawson told Newsmax. In another example cited by Palizar, state-owned Iran Khodro, which manufactures Peugeot cars under license from France, was forced to give new cars to government judges at half price paid in installments, "but most didn't even bother to pay their instalments," Palizar said. Not to be outdone, when they heard of this deal, an organization called the Nahjolbalacheh Foundation asked that its members receive 500 vehicles under a similar arrangement. "Now who do you think this Nahjolbalacheh Foundation belongs to?" Palizar asked. "It belongs to Nategh Nouri [the former Majles speaker who now heads of the supreme leader's office], Rafiq-doust [fthe former minister of the Revolutionary Guards Corps, who now heads the Bonyad-e Mostazafan, a huge state-owned industrial conglomerate], Habibollah Asgaroladi [a member of the Bazaar Merchant Coalition society, believed to be one of the wealthiest individuals in Iran], Moezi [the deputy director of the supreme leader's office]," and others. Also asking for free cars was the Hamgaraei Andisheh organization, belonging to former Intelligence Minister Ali Falahian and Ayatollah Alm Alhoda, a radical cleric from Mashad," he added. Ayatollah Vaez-Tabasi, the supreme leader's representative to Khorasan province in eastern Iran, had demanded that he be given ownership of the Tabas Stone Mining company "and 12 other large mines in Khorasan province," Palizar said. Tabassi's son was reportedly involved in a corruption scandal known as the "Al Mokaseb" case, according to Iranain blogger Potkin Azarmehr. The case was investigated for two years, but all charges were dropped against Tabassi's son and the other accused, In another attack on a close member of Khamenei's entourage, Palizar mentioned that a "big time smuggler" at Payam airport who has been named in 1500 cases of smuggled goods was released with no charges against him. "We are still unable to arrest him, because he is under the protection of ayatollah Nateq-Nuri," Palizar said. Nateq-Nuri heads the "inspection" office of the Supreme Leader, which handles counter-intelligence and other sensitive investigations. In a revelation that could have major repercussions beyond the squabble between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, Palizar also accused unnamed senior regime officials of having murdered a former minister of transportation, Rahman Dadman, in a rigged aircraft accident. Dadman was minister in the government of reformist president Mohammad Khatami, not an ally of Khamenei or of Ahmadinejad. His plane crashed in 2002 in a "pre-planned incident," Palizar said. "The 1,000-page dossier regarding this air crash demonstrates this," he added, but refused to provide details when pressed. Similarly, a 2006 helicopter crash that killed Revolutionary Guards Ground Forces commander, Brig. Gen. Ahmad Kazemi, was also a homicide, he said. Kazemi "had closed down the Hormoz mines for irregularities," Palizar revealed, "and it was after the closure of the mines that his plane crashed." The Hormoz mines were owned by Ayatollah Khazaeli, he added, without further identifying the cleric. So far, Iranian bloggers have been spreading long quotations from
Palizar's presentation all over the Internet, where Persian-speakers
can also view his entire 50-minute long appearance before the students
at Hamedan University, which is available here:
Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
ISRAEL APPROVES ILLEGAL ARAB BUILDING; ISRAELI LAW ON CEDING TERRITORY; HEBRON JEWS VINDICATED
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 11, 2008. |
|
PM OLMERT'S LATEST VIOLATION OF LAW An Israeli attorney demands that the Attorney-General investigate PM Olmert for the felony of negotiating the cession of Israeli territory with a country at war with Israel, i.e. Syria. Israeli law prohibits it. Olmert is violating such separation of powers as exists in Israel (David Bedein, Israel Resource News Agency, 5/25). The law was passed so a high-handed Prime Minister would not cede territory that the country as a whole wants to keep. ISRAEL APPROVES ILLEGAL ARAB BUILDING IN TERRITORIES Defense Min. Barak is approving illegal construction in Arab settlements in Judea-Samaria, as a goodwill gesture towards the P.A.. He has frozen much legal construction in Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria (IMRA, 5/26). Why the inconsistency? Answer: the government of Israel does not exhibit goodwill towards Jews. Everybody has a double standard against the Jews, including the State of Israel. WHAT SYRIA DOES WHILE NEGOTIATING WITH ISRAEL Syria continues to arm Hizbullah (IMRA, 5/26) while discussing a peace that Israel says requires Syria to divorce itself from such Islamist forces. INDIANS & PAKISTANIS WORKING IN DUBAI To escape dire poverty at home, workers from the Indian sub-continent come to booming Dubai. There, employers illegally confiscate their passports or withhold months of wages, to keep the workers from leaving. Soaring inflation reduces their real wages, making it difficult for them to pay off the recruiting agents. The workers are forced to work 60 hours a week in 120 degrees of heat and humidity. (Not all desert regions are dry). They sleep in crowded trailers lacking proper water and sewage facilities (IMRA, 5/26). Sounds like classical peonage, exacerbated by resources diverted into the boom. ISRAELI ECONOMY In the past quarter, Israel's economy grew at an annual rate of 5.4%. The Israeli currency gained against the Euro and more so against the dollar. The shekel is one of the world's stronger currencies (Arutz-7, 5/26). What is the US doing to strengthen its economy? OBSTACLE TO PEACE UNRWA facilities in Gaza have been taken over by Hamas. The purpose of UNRWA is to keep itself in business by keeping Palestinian Arabs in refugee status and dependent upon it. Therefore, UNRWA helps perpetuate some of the aggravating motives for the Arab-Israel conflict. It is an obstacle to peace (IMRA, 5/27). WHAT IS P.A. DOING ABOUT TERRORISM? Based on an unnamed Israeli security official, the P.A. is promoting order as it patrols more P.A. cities. Israel has praise for the P.A., because it seeks intelligence information from Israel about P.A. police who commit intelligence. Dr. Aaron Lerner, however, wonders what the P.A. police do with the information. They usually use it to find out who is informing on terrorists and liquidate him. The Israeli source thinks that the P.A. is doing such a good job that Israel could pull out without much concern that Hamas would take over there. Then he admits that the P.A. does not really confront Hamas. It arrests some of its members, but does not jail or try them (IMRA, 5/27). I think the news brief is self-contradictory, suffering from a politically-minded attempt to make the P.A. look good. If the P.A. looks good, then the politicians' appeasement of it won't be seen as the folly it is. Israel needs factual reporting, so people can make up their own minds. NY TIMES MISSES HALF THE STORY Journalist Isabel Kershner reported that Israel's Defense Min. Barak asked PM Olmert to resign the premiership. The country needs its leader to focus on the job and not on the multiple criminal investigations against him (5/29, A10). The reporter omitted half the story. She might have stated that the country had little confidence that he could focus on the job with any intelligence even when not distracted by criminal investigations. She might have stated the suspicion by some that, inasmuch as the leftist prosecutors have hastened to accuse right-wing officials later found innocent, and have dropped accusations against left-wing officials, his dependency upon leftist police and prosecutors renders him susceptible to their pressure. Finally, she could have observed the irony of the demand for resignation coming from Ehud Barak, whose campaign officials raised funds for him illegally. He was not indicted, but there could have been calls for him to resign. Arutz-7 of 5/28 mentioned that Barak had asked Olmert to step down before, for having botched the Lebanon War. Arutz-7 also referred to Barak's receipt of money-stuffed envelopes, which Barak said was different. If Arutz-7, the settler journal, could get the full story, why couldn't the Times? ISRAELI HUMANITARIAN AID TO GAZA Israel let 23,219 trucks carrying 848,866 tons of food, fuel, and medicine into Gaza, in the past three months (IMRA, 5/27). There would have been more, but Hamas keeps attacking the entry points. It also steal shipments. I haven't heard of the so-called humanitarian organizations condemning Hamas for stealing shipments and attacking entry points and then accusing Israel of creating humanitarian hardships. Instead, the so-called humanitarian organizations condemn Israel and assume that it is Israel's duty to supply the enemy population, and it is an enemy population as contrasted with a civilian population that disagrees with its government's designation of enemies. ISRAELI LAW ON CEDING TERRITORY MK Orlev read aloud the statute holding that anyone who acts towards relinquishing Israeli territory to a foreign power is liable to life imprisonment or capital punishment. PM Olmert is negotiating to do just that. MKs from Right and Left demanded that MK Orlev rescind his statement. Likud leader Netanyahu said that the ballot is the place to settle differences of opinion. (Prime Ministers violate their electoral pledges and don't stand down.) Calling his reference "sedition," the Leftists want him prosecuted. Some of the right-wingers thought his statement could be interpreted as calling for Olmert's murder. A group of rabbis said it was reasonable to read from the statute on treason and for the law to include severe punishment for someone who betrays his country. The rabbis pointed out that any sane citizen feels that Olmert is betraying his country (Arutz-7, 5/27). This new crime of Olmert's surpasses in gravity his financial crimes. Israel in is a form of politically correct, leftist dictatorship, when discussion about enforcing a law preserving the country is treated as the crime rather than the officials' betrayal of the country. Did the Knesset pass the law so it should not be enforced? The question is not a difference of opinion but Olmert's flouting of the law. Israel does not enforce the law against leftist appeasement of the Arabs, otherwise Peres or his associates would be prosecuted for negotiating Oslo. Netanyahu's reaction seems to exhibit fear, as a result of his having been falsely accused by the left, which includes the media, of creating the political environment in which PM Rabin could be assassinated. Alternatively, he is part of the leftist political elite mistakenly called rightist. I think both are operative. FRENCH COURT RULES AL DURA STORY A FRAUD A Frenchman disproved the Al Dura story, that IDF troops shot young Al Dura dead. The French TV station that broadcast the blood libel sued the critic for libel. The Court just ruled in his favor. The TV station defended itself by intimidating the accuser, by hiding evidence, i.e., the bulk of the tape that it had not broadcast, and by demanding its version be accepted on the strength of its reputation and its good faith dependence upon its Palestinian Arab stringer. The court forced the station to produce most of the evidence. Some of the tape had been deleted, like Pres. Nixon's tapes. The station's obstruction made the now disproved story –– originally turned by the media into global denunciation of Israel –– a fraud. The trial was exciting, but the media did not attend and mostly ignores the result. The result, after all, is not anti-Israel. The fraudulent broadcaster continues his prejudicial work against Israel (Plaut, 5/27). JEWS IN EZRA HOUSE IN HEBRON VINDICATED The Ezra family owned a house in Hebron for a couple of hundred years. Then Arabs forced the Jewish owners out. When Israel gained Hebron in 1967, the property went to the Custodian of Abandoned Property. The Custodian let it decay and barred the Jewish owner and those whom he designated may live there. Two Jewish families moved in, anyway, without permission. (Remember, the government's permission to go to the bathroom.) The government, the Arabs, and NGOs demanded they move out. A military court ruled that the Custodian failing in his duty to preserve the property and let the owners in. The Custodian claimed to be protecting the rights of former Arab vendors at the site, which Peace Now claims the Jews stole from them. The court found the vendors lack rights to the stolen property, except, perhaps, for some compensation if their leases were legitimate and curtailed. The court's solution is its ruling that the residents must vacate for a period, and then get permission from the Custodian to move back in, but the residents may appeal, and by the time the appeal is heard, they will be able to stay (IMRA, 5/28). Sounds like Jewish logic in behalf of justice. UNO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION More than half the members now are not democracies. Muslim states have increased their representation on the Commission (Arutz-7, 5/28). It should be called the Anti-Israel Commission Against Human Rights. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear regularly in 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 |
|
ISRAEL'S BIG-MOUTH SYNDROME
Posted by Michael Freund, June 11, 2008. |
|
All talk and no action. That is what Israel's government ministers have excelled at of late. In the process, however, they have developed a rather dangerous tendency of saying things in public that would best be left unsaid. It is a form of BMS –– or Big-Mouth Syndrome –– and it is causing grave damage to the country and its interests. As I suggest in the column below from the Jerusalem Post, it is time for our leaders to stop talking and start acting, because the threats facing Israel are such that we can no longer afford to continue dilly-dallying. Comments and feedback may be sent to: letters@jpost.com or to me directly. |
|
Here we go again. Every few months, it seems, an Israeli government minister decides to open his mouth nice and wide, and blurt out something entirely superfluous or unnecessary, regardless of the damage that it may cause to the country and its interests. Back in February, you may recall, it was Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai who needlessly sparked an international uproar when he threatened the Palestinians with a "shoah" if they continued to fire Kassam rockets at Israel. "The more Kassam rocket fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they (the Palestinians) will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves," he told Israel Army radio (February 29). While the word "shoah" means disaster or conflagration, it also just happens to be the Hebrew term used for the Nazi Holocaust. "It could be that he should have picked another word," Vilnai's spokesman admitted somewhat sheepishly. You think? Not surprisingly, Reuters and other media outlets had a field day with that one.
THEN, LAST week came Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz's turn to speak, well, out of turn. In an interview with Yediot Aharonot, Mofaz declared that "If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective." Now don't get me wrong. I am all in favor of bombing Iran in order to stop the would-be Hitler of Persia from obtaining nuclear weapons. But why on earth did Mofaz have to telegraph Israel's intentions to the enemy? It's the equivalent of a football coach announcing his team's next play for the benefit of the opponents. Only this is a matter of life and death. Mofaz's comments were roundly and summarily condemned across the political spectrum, if only because of their sheer inanity. Indeed, it was widely theorized that with talk of Kadima planning to hold party primaries in the near future, Mofaz was anxious for a dramatic headline that would position him to Olmert's right. And so, in a mad rush for the limelight, the former IDF Chief of Staff breathlessly threw caution to the wind, even if it came at the country's expense. Will these guys ever learn to shut up?
OF COURSE, this is hardly the first time that loose Israeli lips have nearly sunk ships. Back in February 1978, Moshe Dayan revealed that Israel was secretly selling arms to Ethiopia, which led the Addis Ababa government to angrily halt the nascent aliya of Ethiopian Jewry. Seven years later, in early 1985, the covert airlift of Ethiopian Jews known as Operation Moses was called to an abrupt halt after it too was leaked to an Israeli newspaper. And even on the most sensitive of military subjects, Israel's politicians often seem unable to contain themselves. Take, for example, the deliberate veil surrounding Israel's nuclear ambiguity, which was a cornerstone of national policy for decades. That carefully constructed strategy was rudely shattered in an instant back on July 13, 1998, when Shimon Peres told an audience in Amman, Jordan, that Israel had "built a nuclear option not in order to have a Hiroshima but an Oslo." And so, with one slip of the tongue, Peres undid what teams of Israeli diplomats and strategists had spent years carefully trying to calibrate. Sadly, Israel's leaders seem to suffer from an acute case of BMS, or Big-Mouth Syndrome. Drunk with power, they spill the beans faster than a child caught with his hand in a cookie jar. Their behavior brings to mind Plato's observation that "wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something." Or, as the sages of the Talmud (Pesahim 99a) put it, "Silence is fitting for the wise, and all the more so for fools." Of course, all this would make for little more than entertaining copy if it weren't for the severity of the consequences. But gratuitous blather is a luxury that Israel can ill-afford, particularly when we are in a high-stakes game of survival facing down enemies such as Hamas, Hizbullah and the ayatollahs. Our leaders' habit of speaking out of turn only serves to cast further doubt on their already dubious sense of judgment. If they can't even keep their mouths closed about matters of great national import, can they really be relied upon to make the right decisions?
MOREOVER, EXCESSIVE talk is often the last refuge of the powerless. Just think of how many times in recent months various Israeli leaders have warned Hamas to stop firing rockets at Sderot and the Negev. These threats have proven empty time and again, diluting their deterrent value and impact, and making a mockery of Israel's defense. The evident gap between our words and our actions invites more than just accusations of posturing. They project a cartoonish sense of weakness, which the enemy is only too happy to exploit. So here is a simple piece of advice for all the Matan Vilnais, Shaul Mofazes and various other loquacious types who currently inhabit our government: please stop talking, and start acting. Instead of hurling empty threats at Hamas, or well-intentioned threats at Teheran, why not devote your precious time and energy to actually doing something about these issues. Stop blowing off a lot of hot air, and start taking care of business, before it's too late. Don't tell us what you might do, what you want to do, or even what you're going to do to our foes. Just do it already, and let your actions speak for themselves. Oh, and one more thing. The next time you feel an unquenchable urge to throw open your jaws and blabber about some state secret to the nearest guy with a microphone, just take hold of yourself and remember Will Rogers' timeless counsel: "Never miss a chance to shut up." Believe me –– you'll be doing yourself, and your country, a well-deserved favor. Michael Freund served as an adviser to former Prime Minister Binyamin
Netanyahu.
This article appeared today in the Jerusalem Post and is archived at
|
|
JEWISH DEFENSE LEAGUE (JDL) –– 40 YEARS LATER
Posted by Shaul and Aviva Ceder, June 10, 2008. |
|
This was written by Libby Kahane, wife of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane.
She is the author of Rabbi Meir Kahane: His Life and Thought, Vol.
I 1932-1975 |
|
My husband Rabbi Meir Kahane founded the Jewish Defense League precisely 40 years ago in New York City. He did so in response to a rise in violent crimes committed by African Americans who were doubtlessly reacting to difficult socioeconomic conditions. Nevertheless, crimes like purse snatching and muggings were an everyday event. Robberies increased 70 percent from 1967 to 1968, and assaults went up 25%. Like many New Yorkers, I never went out at night alone, and when I shopped I kept my cash in an inside pocket. New York City was typical of other American cities. In fact, in 1967 and 1968, blacks rioted in over 150 cities in the United States. Black –– and Puerto Rican –– crime often had distinctly anti-Semitic overtones. In New York City, Jewish teachers were assaulted in the public schools, cemeteries were desecrated and synagogues defaced and firebombed. Jewish neighborhoods were hit the hardest because Jews and minorities often lived side-by-side and Jews had a reputation for not fighting back. The JDL aimed to change the image of Jews from patsies to fighters. Meir often said, "To turn the other cheek is not in our Bible." So the JDL organized classes in judo, karate and riflery, and its members patrolled high-crime areas. The media were intrigued by Jews who defied the Jewish stereotype. Newspapers, TV and radio carried reports about the JDL's training camp, and about its daring confrontations to protect Jewish teachers and shopkeepers. JDL chapters were formed in cities throughout America. The JDL also opposed preferential quotas in college admissions and employment. We maintained that quotas discriminated against Jews, whose hard-won advancement was based on merit.
Meir challenged the quotas in the courts, and to publicize their unfairness, JDL members picketed the offices of the New York Mets baseball team. They carried signs demanding that the Mets hire enough Jews to make up 26.2% of their roster –– the percentage of Jews in the city at the time.
WHILE MIDDLE and lower-class Jews appreciated JDL efforts to counter crime and discrimination, leaders of the Jewish establishment were only concerned with maintaining their respectable image. They called Meir a rabble-rouser and termed the JDL a vigilante group. It hurt to hear my husband insulted, but I knew they were wrong. Regular police protection was inadequate, and American cities had become jungles. No one could deny the need for self-defense groups. Leaders of the Jewish establishment never had to walk alone at night in a rough neighborhood. That establishment's oft-repeated criticism was that the JDL's violent means were "un-Jewish." Meir refuted this: "...From the days that our father Abraham went to battle against the four kings in order to save his nephew Lot, to the moment that Moses smote an Egyptian rather than create a committee to study the root causes of Egyptian anti-Semitism; from the Maccabees... to the students of Rabbi Akiva who were sent from their studies to fight in Bar Kochba's army... Jewish leadership has taken an active and violent part in the struggle for freedom."
THE IDEALS that Meir taught JDL members were based on Torah. An important tenet was ahavat Yisrael, loving one's fellow Jews and helping them. Ahavat Yisrael motivated JDL patrols and confrontations, and it applied to any Jew in trouble, even one far away in the Soviet Union. During the Cold War, there was no contact with Soviet Jews. Only in 1964 did information begin to leak out about their oppression. Circumcision was forbidden, and it was illegal to teach a Jewish child about his religion or to bake matzot for Pessah. No Soviet citizen was allowed to emigrate, so a Jew could not even practice his religion elsewhere. Official Soviet papers like Pravda fanned anti-Semitism by blaming the Jews for the Soviet Union's severe economic problems. It was to solve their economic problems, and to buy American wheat at low prices, that the Soviets sought friendly relations with America. Meir saw the window of opportunity. He wrote: "...Wracked by economic problems, [the Soviet Union] desperately needs friendship with the United States... If we can challenge this era of good feeling... it is possible that the Soviets will consider it not worth the bother of persecuting their Jews... "We must make headlines, and they are made only by audacious and dramatic activities. If need be, these activities cannot be confined to sweet respectability and legality... It is not a pleasant task... This is not a job for people who fear getting their hands soiled." In 1964, when Meir wrote this, few were willing to "get their hands soiled." By 1970, however, JDL members were accustomed to disregard "respectability." They were ready to bring the plight of Soviet Jews to the attention of the American public. They disrupted Soviet ballet performances with shouts of "Freedom for Jews" and "Let my people go." At a performance in Chicago, someone threw a tear gas bomb, forcing the audience of 3,500 to leave. In Philadelphia, mice were let loose in the auditorium. Jews held rowdy demonstrations, shouting "Two, four, six, eight, let our people emigrate!"
AFTER A demonstration that blocked a vital Manhattan intersection for 20 minutes, Meir was arrested. This was not his first arrest, and I had learned not to worry; he was usually out on bail in the morning. More important: an arrest brought media interest. That morning he told a nationwide NBC TV audience, "We lost 6 million Jews 25 years ago. We have no intention of losing three and a half million more to national genocide. There is not the slightest doubt that after 53 years, the Soviet-Jewish issue is now on page one." Numerous dramatic JDL demonstrations did indeed put the issue on page one. They moved American public opinion to support basic freedoms for Soviet Jews, and this pressured the Soviet Union to release its Jews. Beginning in 1971, an average of 22,000 Jews emigrated each year. In those years, "violent" JDL demonstrations for Soviet Jews were condemned by the establishment. Today, most people recognize the important role of the JDL. As Glenn Richter, director of the Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry, stated: "Rabbi Kahane propelled the issue of Soviet Jewry into the headlines in a way we, with our less confrontational demonstrations, could not." Meir was right about self-defense and Soviet Jewry. Will it take another 40 years to realize that he was also right about much, much more? Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il |
|
RESERVISTS: IF WE'RE CAPTURED, DON'T NEGOTIATE FOR OUR BODIES
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 10, 2008. |
|
This is from Haaretz Service today
|
|
"If we are captured by the enemy, we ask that the state of Israel does not release many hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for our freedom," Israel Defense Forces reserves soldiers wrote in a letter addressed to the IDF chief of staff, channel 2 reported Tuesday. The reservists, members of a decorated infantry battalion, are slated to be the first soldiers to enter enemy territory should Israel decide to carry out a large-scale military operation in the Gaza Strip. According to Channel 2, the letter will be handed to IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi only when such an operation begins. The soldiers and officers emphasize in the letter that they are "ready to sit in an enemy prison for as long as it takes," and demand that Israel refrain from paying a high price for their freedom. The soldiers also ask that no negotiations be held over their dead bodies or parts of their dead bodies. Earlier this month, the Lebanon-based guerilla group Hezbollah handed over to Israel the remains of several IDF soldiers, in what some viewed as efforts to advance a prisoner exchange. Channel 2 also reported Tuesday that former United States president Jimmy Carter was launching efforts to get a letter to captive IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, from his parents. A letter apparently written by Shalit, who was captured by Palestinian militants in 2006, was transferred through the Carter Center to his family on Monday. The Shalit family declined to make public the contents of the letter they received, but said that Gilad begged for his life in it and asked that Israel cooperate and take action to secure his release. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
DROWNING IN SOLUTIONS
Posted by Barry Rubin, June 10, 2008. |
|
Suppose that debate over the world's most obsessive issue is based on nonsense. Consider if the policy options of governments, discourse of universities, and rivers of word in the media on this matter are clearly illogical. What if thousands of diplomats, journalists, and professors are racing down the wrong path and billions of dollars are being tossed away in a futile pursuit? To make matters worse, if all that time, attention, energy, and resources is being devoted to the wrong things, they cannot be used to solve real, pressing problems that might be better handled. That's a pretty horrendous scenario, right? But that is basically the situation we face regarding the absurd belief that the Arab-Israeli, or more immediately, the Israeli-Palestinian, conflict can be resolved at this time. So let me say it again: despite the mountains of speeches, conferences, articles, committees, foundation grants, projects, currencies of every description, and policies expended on it, there is no solution in sight for the conflict. It will continue for decades, Hamas is not about to become moderate, even Fatah and the Palestinian Authority (PA), which few reporters can even mention without inserting the word moderate before their names, isn't anywhere near moderate enough to make peace. If you examine in detail the composition of the PA or Fatah, the nature of its leadership, the articles in its newspapers or the talking heads in its television shows, the slogans at its rallies, the contents of its textbooks, the themes of its officially appointed clerics sermons, and so on, the combined inability and unwillingness to make peace could not possibly be more obvious. Yet, no, it is not obvious at all, I guess. For some it isn't obvious because they know nothing about the region, its history or politics. For others they simply don't want to pay attention because their goal of peace is too precious to have to take facts into account. In fact, they have no shortage of explanations why they are repeatedly proven wrong and no lack of solutions –– a long list of things that are not going to happen. That list includes: believing in Hamas moderation; negotiating with Hamas; asking Jordan to step in to govern the West Bank; Egypt talking sense to the Palestinian leadership; extending Gaza into Sinai; back-channel dialogues (I've been to those, the Israelis apologize and the Palestinians blame Israel for everything); person-to-person contacts; making an agreement to sit on a shelf until there is an agreement; making an agreement in principal until there's an agreement; a one-state solution; a two-state solution; a three-state solution; changing the shape of the table; giving more concessions (Israel, that is, funny how you never hear about the Palestinians making concessions); economic development; and so on ad infinitum. The real point is that Hamas (along with Iran, Syria, and Hizballah) doesn't want a solution (except one through total victory after decades of Islamic revolutionary warfare) and the Fatah/PA side is incompetent, disorganized, and still too radical to accept one. Fatah and the PA prefer a deal with Hamas, not Israel. They are fostering an ethos which basically says, Blessed is the suicide bomber for he is a national hero. Their alternative solution is still the destruction of Israel, though many people in various Arab states know that is a disaster not for Israel but for the Arabs. Yet the idea of finding the solution and a speedy one at that –– the opiate of the policymakers? holy grail? philosopher's stone? –– negates both all of our previous experience plus any sensible analysis of the current situation. Why is this? Ignorance is an important factor, as is arrogance (I will make peace!), and opportunism (there's a lot of money, fame, and career advancement in the peace industry!). There is also a baffled rationalism –– why wouldn't the Palestinian or Arab leaders make peace when it is so much in their interests? (Answer: they don't think it to be in their interests, as well as believing it to be unnecessary and immoral.) Finally, there are just plain old good intentions, which have killed almost as many people in history as bad intentions. It would be better to devote ourselves –– and governments, their time –– to real issues and policy alternatives. But the starting point must be based on one simple admission: There is no solution in sight and no gimmick that will bring such an outcome. Let's begin the discussion there. Don't worry! There's plenty to talk about and even more to do: the politics of Fatah/PA; will Hamas destroy them and how to prevent it; how can Lebanon be kept from being a state dominated by Hizballah-Iran-Syria; the best strategy in Iraq; stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons; defeating Tehran's ambitions; promoting a positive stability in Jordan and Egypt; keeping Islamism from destroying what's left of the region; reducing terrorism; and you can add another twenty issues to that. Why, people could even figure out how they should support Israel, which has to deal with constant attack attempts by those who refuse peace and embrace –– at least when they aren't being interviewed in English by the Western media –– extremism and violence. But as long as we spend a disproportionate amount of our time pretending there's some imminent Arab-Israeli solution (or attending to the ridiculous notion that the failure is Israel's fault), we won't give enough attention to the real threats, issues, and options. And, yes, that's one of the reasons why the Middle East is often such a mess, the Western attempt to deal with the region is usually such a shambles, and the effort to understand the area is generally such a disaster. 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 |
|
FATAH AND HAMAS SCHOOLS THE SAME: HOW HAMAS RUNS GAZA; UNIFIL SIDES
WITH HIZBULLAH; CONDITIONAL PRINCIPLES
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 10, 2008. |
|
BUSH PUSHING FOR A P.A. STATE At the conference on investing in the P.A., the Bush administration expressed hope that conferees would expedite foundation of a state in the P.A. (IMRA, 5/22). Bush is pushing for an economically viable Arab state instead of for a tolerant, civil, and democratic society within the P.A., which could make genuine peace with Israel. I think he is conning Israel with his talk about a democratic Arab state at peace with Israel. What we have is an entire Arab society fanatically at war with Israel. He is not trying to change that. It is like what he anticipated would be a quickie war with Iraq: win officially, then struggle on. OLMERT'S PHILOSOPHY PM Olmert said about his negotiating with Syria, "It is always better to talk than to shoot (ARutz-7, 5/22). No it is not. It would have been better had the French shot at the Nazi troops remilitarizing the Rhineland, instead of talking and losing whole countries to Germany without a shot. It would have been better had Israel done more shooting at Hizbullah and less talking with the UNO. Now Hizbullah has re-emerged as a greater menace to Israel. It would have been better had Israel not talked with Arafat and brought him back to the Territories. It would have been better if Israel had sent a major force into Gaza before Hamas could build up military defenses and better rockets. It would be better not to signal weakness, as the Arabs interpret infidel conciliatory behavior as by negotiating. AL DURA CASE RULED PHONY The French appeals court overturned the lower court's conviction of a man for libel for accusing France's broadcasting station of having used faked evidence to pretend that Israelis soldiers murdered a Palestinian Arab boy named Al Dura. The case had been exploited to make Israel look bad and anger millions of people against Israel. Now the question is whether the station will apologize or be barred from Israel, as requested by a lawsuit there (Arutz-7, 5/23). P.A. EDUCATION SAME IN JUDEA-SAMARIA AS IN GAZA They both stress that all of Israel is "occupied Palestine." Both their TV broadcasting is irredentist, showing Arab children with keys to former houses from 1948 hanging around their necks (IMRA, 5/25). SYRIAN PLANS FOR THE GOLAN Suppose PM Olmert is able to detach the Golan from Israel and attach it to Syria with restrictions on Syrian use of it. What plans has Syria for the Golan? Observe that Syria did with Lebanon. It injected 800,000 settlers into Lebanon, most of whom continue to exert a Syrian influence on the country. Syria has threatened to send a million colonists to the Golan. It claims that 100,000 Arabs fled from the Golan to Syria, in the wake of the 1967 war. Now those families are said to number 500,000 members. Syria is expected to send military reservists to live on the Golan. The government has offered a bounty to Syrians to move to the Golan. (No more surplus water flowing into Israel!) The intelligence officers to be ensconced on the Golan would open up a "resistance" to Israel. That means constant terrorism, especially when the Assad regime is overthrown, as the growing Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda want to do. Any Jews who didn't flee before would have to, then (IMRA, 5/23) When Israeli leftists make policy proposals, they do not discuss the likely Arab reaction. They do not seem to think about it, themselves. If they did, they wouldn't make those proposals. NATURE OF IRAN-SYRIA TIES It isn't just military. Iran invests extensively in Syria. Syria is not likely to break its ties with Iran (Arutz-7, 5/25), except possibly superficially as a ruse to lull Israeli suspicions. Another linkage between the two countries is that Iran gives Syria money to modernize its armed forces. HOW HAMAS RUNS GAZA The Palestinian Human Rights Center protested against the Hamas takeover of a sports and social club in Gaza. Armed men with the Hamas insignia appeared at the homes of heads of the club, demanded the keys, and took inventory (IMRA, 5/25). No compensation mentioned. The Center seemed surprised. It always ends its complaints with a demand that the authorities stop this kind of behavior. But it is the authorities who authorized it. That is the way totalitarian regimes work. All organizations that communicate with people are made to communicate the regime's line and not be able to support opposition. ISLAMISTS RISING IN TURKEY Hizbullah. Hamas, and native Islamists in Turkey organize large propaganda meetings among both Turks and Kurds. They preach that it is treasonous to make peace with Israel. They talk about eliminating Israel (Arutz-7, 5/25). The West is losing the support of the people even in governments that are reasonably friendly to it. The West carries democracy too far, letting the enemy immigrate. Once in, the enemy votes. Its influence paralyzes a definitive break with the enemy. UNIFIL SIDES WITH HIZBULLAH The Security Council's ceasefire resolution on Lebanon requires Hizbullah not to post forces south of the Litani R., so as to keep itself separated from conflict with Israel. Hizbullah has sent armed men south of the Litani R., where, especially in Shiite villages serving as cover, they have built an infrastructure for war. UNIFIL forces, in cooperation with the (non-cooperating) Lebanese Army, are supposed to enforce the resolution. It has 20,000 troops there to do so. They have photographed Hizbullah forces in the forbidden zone. When spotting UNIFIL photographers, Hizbullah gunmen attempt to take the cameras away. After such confrontation, UNIFIL ordered its troops to stop taking pictures! The UNIFIL commander recently gave a speech praising his organization's success in Lebanon. Ignoring the violations of which his organization is well aware, the general claimed that Hizbullah doesn't violate the ceasefire, its men south of the river just do charity work. He claimed that Israel, and only Israel, violates the ceasefire, by flying reconnaissance over Lebanon (IMRA, 5/26). UNIFIL is such a failure, that Hizbullah has rebuilt its pre-war forces and then some. Naturally Israel tries to keep itself informed about Hizbullah disposition of forces, since UNIFIL allows such forces. To be fair to UNIFIL, the ceasefire, itself, was poorly constructed. It made UNIFIL somewhat dependent upon the Lebanese Army, which acts more like an ally of Hizbullah than an agent of Lebanese governmental sovereignty and integrity. The Lebanese Army does not do its share. That violation should be spoken of by UNIFIL. Instead, UNIFIL closes its eyes to preparations for new jihadist aggression, and points fingers at Israel, the intended victim. Some UNO! The Olmert-Livni regime shares responsibility for this debacle, because it pushed for UNO troops instead of smashing Hizbullah, itself. This is another case in which it would have been better to keep shooting than to start talking. HAMAS MENACE GROWING The head of the Israeli security service warned that Hamas has doubled the range of its rockets. From being able to reach Ashkelon, it now can reach the major port of Ashdod. Iran expressed willingness to arm Hamas with even more advanced weapons (IMRA, 5/25). The menace grows, because the weak Israeli regime supposes that it is better to talk than to shoot. As enemy might rises, the Olmert regime becomes more afraid of destroying the enemy, because of the increasingly heavy casualties to be sustained in doing so. It becomes a vicious cycle. IDF leaders now are afraid that a war with Syria and its allies would cost Israel hundreds of thousands of casualties. Barry Chamish thinks that in full-scale war, the enemy attack would destroy the IDF ability to coordinate as an army. In support of his concern is the increasing accuracy of enemy missiles, and the enemy having charted Israel's military bases and major infrastructure centers. CONDITIONAL PRINCIPLES Former IDF Chief of Staff, Min. of Transportation Mofaz opposes ceding the Golan to Syria "at this time," because that would mean handing it over to Iran. Dr. Aaron Lerner remarked that apparently Mofaz is not concerned with safeguarding the security of generations after Iran might not longer be a menace (IMRA, 5/25). Hillel Halkin wrote a good defense of retaining the Golan for security reasons. He expressed no historical, legal, and religious reasons, however (NY Sun, same week as above.). Politicians have conditional principles. ISRAELI SOLDIERS RELOCATED AWAY FROM TERRORISTS Most of the Israeli troops on a base near a heavy buildup of terrorists forces in Gaza were moved away. The IDF said it took this precaution against terrorists surprising the troops by emerging from a tunnel dug below them. Israeli politicians denounced the move as cowardly. Nearby Israeli residents were worried. One leader pointed out that the troops were not combat troops, so the move was not what it seemed, not a retreat from combat (IMRA, 5/25). Most commentary was not on the merits of the move. Israelis reacted extemporaneously, without consulting the military. They took emotional stands. They postured. I think they should discuss the issues and find out what makes sense. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear regularly in 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 |
|
THE DIM BULBS IN CONGRESS
Posted by Milt Fried, June 10, 2008. |
|
This comes from Robert Windhoz. |
|
WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR THE DIM BULBS IN CONGRESS TO SEE THE LIGHT The OPEC minister will look you in the eyes and state: We are at war with you infidels. Have been since the embargo in the 1970s. You are so arrogant you haven't even recognized it. You have more missiles, bombs, and technology; so we are fighting with the best weapon we have and extracting on a net basis about $700 billion/year out of your economy. Death to the infidels! While I am here I would like to thank you for the following: Not developing your 250-300 year supply of oil shale and tarsands. we know if you did this, it would create millions of jobs for US citizens, expand your engineering capabilities, and keep the wealth in the US instead of sending it to us to finance our war against you bastards. Thanks for limiting defense dept. purchases of oil sands from your neighbors to the north. We love it when you confuse your allies. Thanks for over regulating every segment of your economy and thus delaying, by decades, the development of alternate fuel technologies. Thanks for limiting drilling off your coasts, in Alaska, and anywhere there is a bug, bird, fish, or plant that might be inconvenienced. Better that your people suffer! Glad to see our lobbying efforts have been so effective. Corn based Ethanol. Praise Allah for this sham program! Perhaps you will destroy yourself from the inside with theses types of policies. This is a gift from Allah, praise his name! We never would have thought of this one! This is better than when you pay your farmers NOT TO GROW FOOD. Have them use more energy to create less energy, and simultaneously drive food prices through the roof. Thank you US Congress!!!! And finally, we appreciate you letting us fleece you without end. You will be glad to know we have been accumulating shares in your banks, real estate, and publicly held companies. We also finance a good portion of your debt and now manipulate your markets, currency, and economies to our benefit. "THANK YOU AMERICA !" Contact Milt Fried at docmiltfried@mindspring.com |
|
ISLAMIC HARAM AND HALAL
Posted by Morris Sadek, June 10, 2008. |
|
This comes from It is haram to marry an adult pagan woman but halal to marry an underage Muslim child. It is haram to steal an egg from a Muslim, punishable by cutting hands and feet, but halal to rob non Muslim's commercial caravans, rewarded by share of the booty. It is haram to slaughter an animal in a name other than God but alal to slaughter a human being in the name of God. It is haram to befriend a Jew or a Christian but halal to kill them and sleep with their wives and daughters. It is haram to watch television but halal to watch beheadings and stoning. It is haram for a woman even to show her face to a namahram man but halal for a man to disrobe and inspect a namahram woman before buying her in a slave market. It is haram to buy mortgage to acquire a house for your family but halal to buy a woman from a slave market to sleep with her. It is haram to trade alcohol but halal to trade human beings. It is haram to listen to music but halal to listen to wailing of innocent women and children of the beheaded critics and apostates. It is haram to see a movie but halal to kill an infidel. It is haram to bet on a horse for entertainment but halal to steal a horse from an infidel for a living. It is haram for a woman to have more than one husband but halal for a husband to have more than one wife. It is haram for a husband to hurt his wife by treating other wives better, but halal for him to hurt them all by acquiring and sleeping with unlimited slaves and captive women. It is haram for a wife to refuse her husband even on a camels back but halal for a husband to beat her up with a lash and green stick if she refuses him. It is haram to even break the heart of a single innocent person if he is Muslim, but halal to behead all the innocent men of a community and sell their innocent women and children in slavery if they are non Muslims. It is haram to attack and and injure enemy women but halal to enslave and rape them. It is halal to stone a woman by burying her in a hole dug to her shoulders to maintain her "hijab" but haram to stone her on a flat ground and risk her "hijab". It is halal to let young girls burn in fire but haram to rescue them if they do not have hijab. "islamic Attack on copts TODAY"
Where will the criminals hide from God's wrath? Why attack St Abufana monastery and the peace loving monks? The world should know that racism is rife in Egypt. If you are Coptic your life is hell. Copts in Egypt are discriminated against in every day's life. The taxpayers' money is spent on Alazhar and Islamic dawa (islamisation) to provide the world with the most notorious terrorists ever.. In the last 40 years no one was punished for murdering Copts (Christian Egyptians), attacking/demolishing churches, robbing or vandalising properties. The Coptic victims and their families and are silenced and justice is never pursued. In Alkosh case the biased judge asked the families of the Christian victims and their killers to shake hands and play happy family, as we live in the same country and should play brothers. JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS AND CHRISTIAN MARTYRS WE ASK FROM DICLEDYANOS AND HIS LIKES OF TORMENTORS. In only a few days, 4 Copts were killed in Cairo, jewellery shop robbed in Alexandria, a Christian was killed in Minya and a holy place for Christians in the desert was attacked and ruined in Minya. The monks living in the monastery were injured, their arms and legs broken, 3 kidnapped and humiliated made to spit on the cross and asked to say the muslim testimony! It's not the 7th or 8th century, it's the 21st century where Muslims are given equal opportunities in the predominantly Christian countries and building mosques in every European city even in the Vatican But their double standards do not allow Christians who the ingenious people of the Middle East to worship or co-exist. The religious doctrine and teaching in most muslim countries calls for killing the infidels(non-believers) and this is adopted by governments and people.. See what happens to people in Algeria, Afghanstan, Egypt, Iran anywhere, when someone converts to Christianity from Islam, they call for their execution. But the same shameless people do their best to convert Christian youngsters esp. girls. Offering money, marriage, luring them or raping them if need be. The same malicious double standard and playing the game by their corrupt rules. The government officials condone violence by lying always saying that these cases are individual and then arresting the victim before arresting the assailant. The Abufana monastery was attacked several times in the past few years. The government now is too weak to protect its own citizens let alone the countries borders. They are playing a game with the racist terrorist Muslim brotherhood and Christians always have to pay for their madness. In every street, road, hospital, governmental building a mosque is there to be used to charge some fanatics with hatred and violence against non-Muslims. The very same country does not tolerate a Church being built and it takes decades for a permission to build a church to be issued but it takes a few hours for a few churches to be burned and demolished by the new Nazists and the real threat to world security and co-existence. The killing of Christians in Egypt should stop. The Muslim brotherhood and the government are the regime are the real culprit. The blood of Copts is on the hands of Minya governor as on the hands of Bedwins and Samir Abolol who terrorise the humble and unarmed Christians and poor monks. The day will come when Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas will ruin Egypt everyone will be a loser. We should let it be known that not only terrorism is rife in Egypt and the middle East but racism and organised crime against Christians. Christians do not speak out because of fear for their lives. The world needs to hear our outcry and every crime needs to be documented. The day will come when every terrorist and fanatic will pay for their crimes. God is looking down and will punish them like Moses' pharaoh and his people. Watch "Radical Islam Over Runs London Streets"
by clicking here.
Morris Sadek Esq is a lawyer at the Court of Cassation, Egyptian
special Legal Counsel and the DC Bar, United States of America. He is
President of the National American Coptic Assembly USA.
|
|
THE GOVERNMENT'S PLAN FOR GAZA
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, June 10, 2008. |
|
Caroline Glick blows the cover off the Olmert-Barak-Livni short term fake war so they can conduct an equally short-term peace in order to save the Kadima Party. Clearly, Olmert, Barak, Livni and Peres should be up for trial right now for subverting the security of the Jewish nation. As for the U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, she is playing General and will forever be known as the female Neville Chamberlain of our time. This Israeli government gives treason a new meaning, starting a new fake war to provide political cover for a corrupt government, following a false cease fire, will explode in their face as Hezb'Allah, Syria, Iran join in against an imprisoned Israel. As I have said before, when the saturation missile attack starts, gather up the Kadima Party government and put them into the deepest cells of the Russian compound and bring them to trial after the coming war. Glick's article appeared today in the Jerusalem Post
|
|
The Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government is marching the country into another military confrontation with an Iranian proxy army. As was the case in the last confrontation with an Iranian proxy army two years ago, the country's leaders are fully committed to Israel's strategic defeat in the current one. Tuesday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak will meet ahead of Wednesday's security cabinet meeting to determine their preferred course of action in Gaza. As media reports and statements by the three's surrogates over the past several days make clear, Israel's political leaders oppose launching a military campaign aimed at defeating Hamas's Iranian directed, financed, trained and armed army and dislodging Hamas's jihadist regime from power. Indeed, as their actions and statements over the past several months make clear, what Israel's political leaders really aspire to is a cease-fire agreement with Iran's Palestinian proxy regime. Under the proposed cease-fire, Hamas will suspend or scale back its illegal missile war against Israeli civilians in the South. In return, Israel will effectively accept Hamas rule of Gaza. Israel will allow Hamas to continue to build up its military forces in Gaza and have open access to the Sinai. In light of Hamas's negotiations with Fatah towards the reestablishment of a Hamas-dominated Palestinian Authority unity government, such a cease-fire will also entail an end to the economic isolation of Gaza. Since they would be formally governed by Fatah –– Israel's "peace partner," Gazans will be allowed to use Israeli ports and even build their own seaport and perhaps reopen their airport in Rafah. The debate in the West over whether or not to negotiate with Hamas will effectively end –– with an international embrace of Hamas as Fatah's partner. For the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government, a cease-fire is attractive politically. By providing a temporary respite from the jihadist missile attacks against southern Israel, the cease-fire will suspend the local media's coverage of the grave and gathering threat to Israel's security in the South. And the lull in media coverage of the Iranian threat in Gaza will provide breathing room for the scandal-ridden and deeply unpopular Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government as it seeks desperately to avoid new general elections. Gifted politicians that they are, Olmert, Livni and Barak know that if they decide Tuesday to reject the IDF's pleas to conduct a military campaign to dislodge Hamas again and opt instead to sign the Egyptian-mediated cease-fire deal with Iran's Palestinian army, they will be properly accused of political opportunism and cowardice by the media and their political opponents. So to sign on to a deal with Hamas, they need military cover. As The Jerusalem Post reported last week, that smokescreen will likely be what Olmert, Livni, Barak and their surrogates refer to as a "medium-sized military option" against Hamas. The aim of their preferred military approach is not to defeat Hamas. They just want to "send it a message." In plain English, what their preferred military option involves is committing IDF forces to battle in numbers insufficient to defeat Hamas. IDF forces will be killed in battle and in the end, Hamas will still control Gaza. But in their public speeches, Olmert, Livni and Barak will claim victory arguing that now that they have "sent Hamas a message" they can sign the cease-fire agreement. For their part, the local media will justify the government's decisions and agree to present them to the public as a strategic achievement. The media can be expected to do so for two reasons. First, they will not wish to upset the families of the soldiers who will die in the campaign by noting that their lives were sacrificed for nothing. And second, the leftist media is uninterested in general elections which will bring Likud to power and so they will work to block them by collaborating with the government in its attempts to pretend that the "medium-sized military operation" was a good idea. As for the political opposition, as was the case in the Second Lebanon War, they will be unwilling to criticize the government while Israeli forces are risking their lives in battle. Afterwards, they will fear being castigated by the government and its media flacks as "unpatriotic" or "warmongering" if they criticize the outcome of the "medium-sized military operation" that will leave Hamas and Iran strengthened and free to expand their control to Judea and Samaria. In short, Olmert, Livni and Barak are about to decide to sacrifice the lives of IDF soldiers in order to delude the public into believing that signing a cease-fire agreement that leaves Hamas in charge of Gaza and in a position to take over Judea and Samaria is a strategically sound policy. This drastic assertion could be easily attacked as delusional and even paranoid if we hadn't been here before. But we have. Two years ago, Israel was the victim of naked aggression when Hizbullah forces launched an unprovoked attack on an IDF patrol, killed three soldiers and abducted Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser while pummeling northern Israel with Katyusha rockets and short-range missiles. Although Olmert at the time declared war against Hizbullah, he, Livni and then defense minister Amir Peretz refused to order the IDF to defeat Hizbullah. They refused for weeks to launch a ground campaign. They refused for weeks to call up reserve units. Interested in "sending a signal" to Hizbullah rather than defeating its forces, for four weeks they ordered the IDF to conduct operations with no operational logic in which IDF forces were killed in battles that had no strategic purpose. Then, after squandering some 30 days of fruitless fighting, reacting to the public outcry against his incompetence, Olmert belatedly ordered a ground assault of South Lebanon. He ordered IDF forces to move in helter-skelter and attempt to complete an operation that was planned to take more than 96 hours in 48 hours. Most egregiously, the entire operation was launched after the UN Security Council had passed resolution 1701 defining the terms of Israel's cease-fire with Iran's Lebanese proxy army. That is, even if the campaign had been successful, it would have had no impact on the outcome of the war which had already been determined –– with Israeli support –– in New York. And yet, to assuage the public demand for victory, the Olmert-Livni-Peretz-Yishai government launched the last minute "medium-sized" 48-hour attack in which 33 IDF forces were killed in a battle for nothing. Resolution 1701 left Hizbullah intact and provided the illegal army of jihad with unprecedented political legitimacy. Under the cover of 1701, Iran and Syria have rebuilt Hizbullah's forces, which in turn have reasserted their military control over South Lebanon. Just last week Barak warned that Hizbullah is setting up fortified positions along the border. He also said, "The Syrians are working in intimate cooperation with Hizbullah, and they are in large part responsible for the transfer of weapons and supplies to Hizbullah. The ultimate responsibility, as far as we're concerned, lies with Hizbullah on the one hand, and with the Iranians and the Syrians on the other." Barak's statements came two weeks after Hizbullah effectively overthrew the pro-Western Saniora government and through the good offices of the Qataris, forced the March 14 democracy movement to sign the Doha agreement, which transfers control of the country to Hizbullah. Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah was then quick to announce his army's subservience to Teheran. The Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government responded to Hizbullah's violent takeover of the Lebanese government by rewarding it. As Michael Young of Beirut's Daily Star wrote recently, Hizbullah is presenting its swap of dead IDF soldiers' body parts for Hizbullah spy Nissim Nasser as a first step towards a massive Israeli release of Hizbullah and Palestinian terrorists from its prisons in exchange for Regev and Goldwasser. Such a prisoner release will play directly into Hizbullah's hands. It will effectively justify Hizbullah's decision to go to war with Israel two years ago to the Lebanese public. Such justification is essential as Hizbullah moves forward towards gaining internal Lebanese acceptance of its role as ruler of Lebanon. Beyond its effective support of Hizbullah, the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government is strengthening the Iranian-controlled axis by conducting negotiations toward the surrender of the Golan Heights with Syrian President and Iranian proxy Bashar Assad. Here too, Israel is signaling to Assad that his decision to cast his lot with Teheran was a wise one. The international consequences of Israel's behavior have already been unmistakable. This week both French President Nicholas Sarkozy and British Foreign Minister David Miliband visited Lebanon and accepted Hizbullah's demand for control over Mt. Dov on the Golan Heights. Israel seized the strategically vital area which controls the approaches to the Galilee in the 1967 Six Day War from Syria. Hizbullah claimed that it is continued Israeli control of the area that justified its war of aggression two years ago. This all brings us back to the situation in Gaza. In his post-Doha address, Nasrallah urged Hamas to follow his successful model of war against Israel both in order to hasten Israel's destruction and to facilitate the extension of the terror group's control to Judea and Samaria. And of course, that is precisely what Hamas has been doing for the past two years. The Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government's political opponents have claimed that with the ongoing corruption probes against the prime minister, the government lacks the political legitimacy to conduct a military campaign in Gaza. This is a false assertion. As Israel's elected leaders, the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government has a duty to defend the country and the only way to do so is to launch a military campaign in Gaza. The problem is that the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government is incompetent to successfully carry out such an essential campaign. As in Lebanon two years ago, so in Gaza today, the type of campaign that this government will launch will only endanger Israel still further. 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@gwinston.interaccess.com |
|
US FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO ISRAEL
Posted by Steven Shamrak, June 9, 2008. |
|
US Financial Assistance to Israel Quite often I have received from all sorts of anti-Israel campaigners messages that the United States must stop giving aid to Israel and that Israel must show greater appreciation for this help. I have addressed this issue before, but here are some thoughts: 1. With regard to foreign aid to Israel, the reason that $3.0 billion was agreed upon back in 1979 was that Israel abandoned its oil wells in the Sinai which equated to $3.0 billion in oil production per year at $8-10 a barrel of oil. How much would it be in today's market? 2. Egypt has been receiving a similar financial assistance package from the US since getting control of the Sinai, by just signing a worthless piece of paper at Camp David, and has done nothing to promote peace with Israel since than. Does anyone make any noise to say that the US must stop its aid to Egypt? Has Egypt said "thank you" to the good old USA? 3. What about Saudi Arabia, which symbolically receives a few million dollars of US aid? If I remember correctly, the citizens of both countries delivered their 'thank you notes' to the United States on September 11! (Please see below for more about US-Israel 'friendship') Helping US Economy. The Israeli Defense Ministry submitted an official request to the Pentagon, asking to purchase a squadron of F-35 stealth-enabled Joint Strike Fighters (JSF). Each plane is estimated to cost between $70-80 million. In addition to the 25 planes, manufactured by Lockheed Martin, the Defense Ministry also asked for an option to purchase 50 more. Already in September, the IDF announced its intention to purchase up to 100 JSF fighter jets over the next decade. (Pretence that the 'Peace process' exists helps the US economy and allows US aid to 'come back'. More arms sold to Israel and to Arab states in exchange for oil!) Spy Deal with Hezbollah but not the USA. A prisoner convicted of spying for Hezbollah, a Lebanese-born Israeli citizen, was released to Lebanon, after 6 years, by Israel as the terrorist organisation handed over what it said were the remains of dead Israeli soldiers who fell in the Lebanon War two years ago. (For 22 years Jonathan Pollard has been kept in prison. Even Soviet spies spent less time in US jails. 'The Master' –– the USA, is teaching the 'Slave' –– Israel, who is boss!) The Same Hypocritical Game. The US State Department is playing down the significance of a speech by PA Chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas calling for unity with Hamas. Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak Twisted Logic of Hypocrisy: In 1948 seven Muslim countries declared war against Israel. Leaders of the non-Jewish population of Palestine ordered their populace to leave Israel to make it easy for advancing Muslim forces to kill Jews. Now, after Israel won the War of Independence, the participants in this genocidal conspiracy call this victory al-Nakba or Catastrophe. They have been playing the victim game for 60 years and drawing sympathies towards the fake professional 'Palestinian' refugees. The international Jew-haters are only too happy to facilitate this hypocrisy! Flip-Flopping Candidate! Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama qualified his support for a united Jerusalem last Thursday after Arabs voiced intense anger at this policy. Within 24 hours, he backtracked and declared. "Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations..." Two Political Stooges are Playing Jewish Card. Hillary Rodham Clinton assured thousands of AIPAC activists that Barack Obama will be "a good friend to Israel." (But can we trust her opinion? The memory of her anti-Israel stand as first lady is still fresh!) Barking Dogs. Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and Father Desmond Tutu condemned the ongoing Israeli blockade on the Gaza Strip as a "gross violation of human rights." (They did not mention the humanitarian aid, much of which is shipped at the same time as terrorists attack Israel and did not condemn rocket fire and terror attacks against Israel as human rights violations! Who is paying their bills?) Bush is "off the hook". Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's political quicksand that may force him out of the office might turn out to be perfect timing to get American President George W. Bush "off the hook", foreign affairs correspondent Anne Gearan of Associated Press wrote. "If Israeli politics are in meltdown, that's certainly not the time to lock in an agreement that breaks new ground." Quote of the Week: "The Jews have come from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united (not quite, unfortunately) and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them." –– Dr. Wafa Sultan, a Syrian-born psychologies. Beware of Enemy Praise. PA website Ma'an News published a rare tribute to an Israeli politician in the form of a eulogy to Yosef Lapid, leading Israeli secularist. Brigitte Bardot Convicted for Anti-Muslim Hatred. A Paris court convicted internationally known former actress and current animal rights activist Brigitte Bardot of provoking discrimination and racial hatred for writing that Muslims are destroying France. Bardot said France is "tired of being led by the nose by this population that is destroying us, destroying our country by imposing its acts." (Political correctness has become the tool of suppression of freedom of speech and democracy!) Never Ending Story. In his interview in Dubai on June 2, president Bashar Assad raised his price for a 'peace' deal with Israel. The Golan, which Syria's invading army lost to Israel in the 1967 war, is not enough any more. Assad is also demanding a strip of the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. (When will the self-hating Jews and Israeli politicians realize that anything short of the destruction of Israel will never be enough for our enemies?) Iran-made Multiple Launch Rocket in Gaza. The newly smuggled weapon from Iran, of the type used by the Lebanese Hezbollah, carries an 8 kg payload, bigger than the Qassam missile with about a 9 km range, drastically escalates the Hamas-led war against the Israeli population. (This is Hamas ceasefire 'goodwill gesture'!) Arabs Teenage Weapon. A network of 25 Arab teens ages 11 to 18 was identified and its members arrested on charges of hurling firebombs at Israeli vehicles passing through the Jerusalem neighbourhoods. (Teenagers are used as a human shield and as a weapon by Hamas and Fatah, but Israel is blamed for human rights violations!) Look Who is Talking. Syrian President Bashar Assad claimed again last Thursday that Israel did not appear to be serious about wanting to find a peace settlement, because the Jewish State is not ceding the Golan Heights. (Supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, plotting war with Iran against Israel are 'gestures of peace'!) Another Fake 'non-Starter'. Syria rejected Israel's demand that Damascus cut its ties with Iran and Arab militant groups as a condition for a peace agreement. "Damascus does not want preconditions, that would put the cart before the horse..." (At the same time Syria demands that Israel cedes the Golan Heights as a precondition to a negotiation of peace. It is always a one way street!) Hypocrisy of the 'Loaded' Headlines: "US: Israeli blockade on the Gaza Strip has helped Hamas" –– a senior US State Department official (The Jerusalem Post) –– The 'popularity' of Hamas among the so-called Palestinians has nothing to do with the killing of the Jews! Didn't they vote for Hamas before the blockade? Another 'Gesture' of Betrayal. Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak will retroactively approve illegal construction by Arabs in ten neighbourhoods in Judea and Samaria. The approvals are part of Israel's 'gestures' toward the Fatah/PA in Judea and Samaria Unusual Praise from the UN. Israel had a rare moment of gratification at the UN when the country was singled out by the president of the General Assembly, Srgjan Kerim, for its success in combating world food crises. Israel was praised for advance in agricultural technologies that have helped increase agricultural output. Weapons in Gaza Schoolyard. IDF soldiers found weapons buried in a schoolyard in the Gaza City of Sajaya last week. The weapons cache included a grenade launcher and anti-tank missiles. Talking to the Dogs. A new technology is enabling Israeli prison guards to better interpret the warnings given by their dogs. The custom-built computer program enables jailers to better identify abnormal events, such as a struggle or a breakout. (Jews can learn to talk even with dogs. Arabs are completely different matter!) Steven Shamrak was born in the former Soviet Union (USSR) and participated in the Moscow Zionist "refusenik" movement and currently lives in Melbourne, Australia. He publishes internet editorial letters on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak.e@gmail.com Visit his website at www.shamrak.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: THE BLESSING
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 9, 2008. |
|
Here in Israel, we have just completed the holiday of Shavuot, which –– marking the receiving of the Torah at Sinai –– is the culmination of the Exodus from Egypt celebrated at Pesach. (Outside of Israel, the holiday extends for yet another day.) It is customary on this holiday to study all night long. And the blessing is this: After dinner with friends last night, we had a discussion as to where each of us had chosen to go for shiurim –– study sessions. The marvel is that there are so many places to choose from within an easy walk. And then, once out on the street, at midnight and beyond, we encountered many others walking here and there to places of learning. Truly a blessing, that this should be the situation here in Jerusalem. ~~~~~~~~~~ I now enter a period of several days away from my computer. This is likely the last posting for some two weeks. Should there be an occurrence of significance, I will try my best (bli neder, as it is said: "without an oath") to post on my website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info. ~~~~~~~~~~ The most likely occurrence of significance to take place before I return to regular postings is a military operation in Gaza. But, if multiple reports are true, how shamefully it is shaping up. Not an earnest effort to take down Hamas, but some nonsensical effort to teach Hamas a lesson. This is reported to be the plan shared now by Barak and Olmert. The clamoring for action in Gaza is strong, but they are inclined for a variety of reasons to go with a ceasefire. So, they will do a "medium strength" action to take Hamas down a peg or two and not let them gloat that they had it all their way. Then a pull-out and a ceasefire that is coupled with release of Shalit. (This is not my idea, but the government's, I assure you.) No guarantee that things will actually play out this way, but it is, for me, embarrassing to even describe this plan. It seems as if they are telling Hamas in advance: Don't get too upset, guys, because we won't hit too hard, and when we're done you can have that ceasefire. Even if this is their plan, why speak of it at all? The political ramifications here are enormous. I hasten to note that Abbas is very much opposed to a major action in Gaza, which he fears would backfire on him. It must be noted, as well, that there is nothing spelled out regarding a cessation of arms smuggling. But the IDF is ready, and awaiting the go-ahead from the political echelon. Decisions reportedly to be made within days. Reportedly. ~~~~~~~~~~ Then, too, there is the wonderful news that Rice is due back here shortly. Presumably to assess the progress of the "peace process." ~~~~~~~~~~ Regarding that process, chief Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qurei announced recently that the parties have begun drafting a document. This, however, does not mean agreement (apparently there is no agreement yet on any of the core issues), but rather that the position of each side if being committed to writing for the first time. Qurei is also saying that the parties have agreed that all issues must be resolved –– there can be no partial agreement, such as borders but no decision on Jerusalem. But, says Qurei, all of the issues are being discussed. Olmert's office is playing down the significance of this preliminary document. And, indeed, Qurei has said it would take a miracle to reach an agreement by the end of the year. ~~~~~~~~~~ Members of the opposition are stating clearly that if an agreement is reached, they will not honor it when a new government is formed. I myself have some questions about this, because the legality is complicated, but apparently there is precedent. ~~~~~~~~~~ 61% of Israelis think Olmert should resign. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
FOLLOWING HITLER'S PLAYBOOK
Posted by Ted Belman, June 9, 2008. |
|
Arab's play offense while Israelis play defense. Nowhere is this more evident than in the field of propaganda. But first I want to look at the negotiations. Can anyone tell me what the Israelis are demanding. I'm waiting. On the other hand,the Arabs are demanding the holy city in Jerusalem, the greenline as the border and the "right of return". It seems Israel is always struggling to meet their demands in part, hoping it will suffice. No such struggle on the part of the Arabs, Just the reiteration of their demands. They have a sense of entitlement while the Israelis have a sense of indebtedness. That's no way to win a ball game. The Arabs always rejected the State of Israel and in the seventies made a conscious decision to convince the world to do likewise. So they began a propaganda war to demonize and delegitimate Israel and Zionism. The infamous, Zionism is Racism, resolution at the UN was the first volley. David Matas, famed human rights lawyer from Canada, in his excellent book Aftershock, written in 2002, reviewed the attacks on Jews and Israel throughout the world, and asked how could this happen sixty years after the Holocaust? He answers, "The root cause of the revival of antisemitism is anti-Zionism. Zionism is the expression of the right to self determination of the Jewish people. Anti-Zionism, by definition, denies and rejects this right by denying the right to a state by the Jewish people. Anti-Zionism is a form of racism. It is the specific denial to the Jewish people of the basic right to which all people of the world are entitled. Thus the Holocaust is denied or trivialized and the creation of Israel is discredited as western colonialism or a "mistake", if you will. In addition, the Arabs have created a narrative to compete with the Jewish narrative. The Arabs deny that both the First and Second Temples were located at or near the Temple Mount. In their narrative they have the roots and rights in and to the land and the Jews have virtually no connection to it. They also deny the peoplehood of the Jews while at the same time claiming their own and their right to self determination. Beyond that, they attack the Jews/Israel for all the worst crimes known to man. Their charges are not at all based in reality. It doesn't matter if there is any evidence to support them, nor that they are outrageous or perverse. They will distort facts or fraudulently present "facts" to support their allegations. They also misrepresent the law in order to more easily conclude that Israelis have committed a crime, or better still, a war crime. The list of "crimes" include; perpetrating genocide or another holocaust, ethnic cleansing, the commission of war crimes for disproportionality, intentionally killing innocents and creating an humanitarian disaster. They are relentless in stigmatizing Israel as an Apartheid State so that they can create a worldwide movement to delegitimate Israel similar to the movement that undermined a real apartheid regime, namely South Africa. Once again, to do this, the reality and the nature of an Apartheid regime are distorted and falsified. Their lies also include the following; 1. the occupation is illegal David Matas and others have convincingly debunked all of these lies. The Arabs follow Goebbels dictum to a "T", "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." The phrase, "big lie", was also used in a report prepared during the war by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler's psychological profile. His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it. This too they follow to a "T". Its only natural since Haj Amin al Husseini, the father of militant Palestinian Arab nationalism, a previously unknown concept, was a close confident of Hitler and asked of him to acknowledge the Arab right ... to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy. Plus ç a change, plus c'est la même chose. What the Israeli government must do is to challenge every one of these lies at every opportunity. That's what its PR should be about and not about the babes on the beach. That is playing offense. ADDENDUM I received this email from a fair minded person A quick question is there, at the very least, one settlement that is illegal? If you say, no, please explain in simple terms, why Haaretz keeps presenting articles, by articulate, and famous Israelis that say that most of the settlements are illegal. Is Haaretz an anti-Israeli newspaper or does it know something that you don't want to admit? And, no, I'm not in the least defending the vitriol of Arab propoganda, e.g. the Protocols. But, I am lookinhg for some balance. In my opinion Haaretz spins the news and facts to suit their agenda. Here is the law. You decide. The British Mandate gave the Jews the right to settle in Judea and Samaria and all of the lands in the Mandate. That right has never been ceded. It has never been cancelled because no one has the right to do that except for the beneficiaries of the trust (Mandate). I might mention that the international community in supporting the Arab desire that Judea and Samaria be Judenrien is itself in violation of Human rights. Canada and other countries have long ago held that restrictive covenants are illegal. Would this restriction not fall to the same axe. That is to say nothing about the crime of ethnic cleansing. So what then is the international community hanging its hat on? The Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War contains an obligation not to transfer civilian populations to occupied territories. This was put there to protect against what Germany did in WW II when it carried out forced transfers. This provision was so minor that there is no individual liability and there is no duty on states to penalize violations. A Protocol to this Convention does make it a serious offense. The object of the exercise is to protect the people being transferred. In other words it is against forced transfers. Even so, Israel did not sign this protocol so isn't bound by it. To get around this obvious barrier many argue that the Convention not only means a state can't force transfers but also can't induce them. This argument gets no support from legal scholars. For instance if the crime is inducement, the settlers are not guilty of it. Ordinarily the Criminal Code makes it an crime to induce people to commit a crime. You see the distortion here yet again. There is more legal arguments that to be made, but the foregoing is the essence. So, yes, all settlements are legal. Now if the Haaretz' eminent writers take a contrary position, they need to support it and not just allege it. Now a distinction has been made where some settlements are "unlawful". But that doesn't mean they are illegal. This adjective applies only to settlements that didn't have Israeli administrative approval. The foregoing question and my answer prove my point. The propaganda has been so pervasive that fair minded people assume it as fact. Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com |
|
HOENLEIN & RIEGER DECLINE TO DEBATE MK DR. ARIEH ELDAD
Posted by Buddy Macy, June 9, 2008. | |
|
This past Friday I sent an email to Malcolm Hoenlein (malcolm@conferenceofpresidents.org) and Howard Rieger (howard.rieger@ujc.org), inviting them to debate Dr. Arieh Eldad and Dr. Eugene Narrett. (Please see the email that follows this note.) This past Monday I followed up with a phone call to Malcolm and Howard to confirm that they had received the debate invitation email. I spoke with their assistants and explained the reason for my call. I still have not heard from either of them. In these perilous times, it is essential for Israel, for the American Jewish community and for America that a full public debate and discussion of Israel 's situation take place. Yet, Diaspora Jewry's most powerful and established "leaders" have ignored the calls for such an event. By refusing to discuss the issues of extreme importance to American Jews, and by not even acknowledging Knesset Member Eldad's readiness for such a debate, Hoenlein and Rieger have once again demonstrated that they are unfit for their positions of Jewish leadership. Most sincerely,
Contact Buddy Macy by email at vegibud@gmail.com |
|
A JERUSALEM SHAVUOT
Posted by Judy Lash Balint, June 9, 2008. |
|
It's 5:00 a.m on Shavuot morning and I'm having trouble finding an empty seat at any shul in Jerusalem's Old City. Every synagogue is already packed as I make the mistake of lingering a few minutes too long at the Kotel amongst the tens of thousands who have made their way there after a night of learning. After dropping in at three shuls, I finally find a spot on a bench under an outer archway of the women's section of the tiny synagogue inside the Old Yishuv Court Museum on Or Hahayim Street. After Hallel and the reading of the Ten Commandments, a swift Haftarah reading brings us to the Yizkor memorial prayer. Only a few women are left inside as the young girls who filled the place and have not yet lost parents file out. It's about the same proportion down at the Kotel –– it seems that at least two thirds of the masses thronging the Kotel plaza are under 30. Coming barely a week after Jerusalem Day, when similar numbers of mostly young people filled the area to celebrate the reunification of the city, the Shavuot early morning spectacle is another affirmation of the strength of the connection of the people to its roots. In the still air of the pre-dawn, it's as if the Old City is a giant magnet pulling the multitudes in from every direction. Flooding down Agron Street in front of the U.S Consulate building and its sleepy guards, the crowd gathers force and takes over the Mamilla area. The Tower of David and Jaffa Gate rise in front of us, outlined by spotlights. It's 4:45 a.m as we surge forward and down the steps of the David Street shuk only to encounter a human traffic jam as we make the turn from the Street of the Chain into the approach to the Kotel. A few groups of Arabs heading to work are walking up in the opposite direction. No one bothers them as they make their way out of the Old City through Jaffa Gate. There are only four entryways into the Kotel plaza and they're all completely overwhelmed by the numbers of people pressing to get in. With a few friends, I veer off to the left to double around and join the crowd coming in from the direction of Damascus Gate via the tunnel. We manage to squeeze our way into the back of the plaza and start to move toward the women's section, passing a group of nuns from Holland earnestly reading from their Bibles by flashlight. There's barely room to move as more and more people surge in from each of the four entry points. The bright green lights adorning the two mosques behind the Temple Mount shine in the semi-darkness. As the sky begins to change color and turn slowly from a steely grey to light blue, the garish lights vanish. Exactly at sunrise, chattering starlings swoop down, and the voices of the throng rise in prayer. On this holiday of Shavuot that commemorates the giving of the Torah, the symbolic wedding between God and the Jewish people, most of the women are wearing white and the centuries-old Kabbalistic custom of Tikkun Leil Shavuot, a night dedicated to Torah study is observed by hundreds of thousands of Israelis. On the eve of the holiday, commentators on Israel Radio remark on the phenomenon of secular Jews eager to take part in some kind of Torah learning on Shavuot. One daily paper has a tightly packed full page of venues where learning of all kinds is taking place all over the city. Many places are forced to turn people away for lack of space at their study sessions. Last year, a May 18 2007 editorial in the American Jewish weekly
newspaper, The Forward, noted, "...the proportion of Jews that turns
out for the festival (Shavuot) will not be great...Shavuot simply hasn't caught on with recent generations of Jews." Perhaps things have
changed this year, otherwise Shavuot could be another sign of the
widening gap between Israel and the Diaspora.
Judy Lash Balint is an award-winner investigative journalist and
author of "Jerusalem Diaries: In Tense Times" (Gefen). It is available
for purchase from www.israelbooks.com
|
|
IS IPF HELPING ISRAEL OR THE ARABS?; NEW ARAB-INDUCED ARAB FLIGHT; U.S. STRATEGY FOR P.A. FAILS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 9, 2008. |
|
DANISH BOYCOTT OF ISRAEL FAILING Someone sent me a list of recently developed Israeli products, some great medical breakthroughs. Included was this: "One year after Norway's Socialist Left Party launched its boycott Israel campaign, the importing of Israeli goods has increased by 15%, the strongest increase in many years, Statistics Norway reports. In contrast to the efforts of tiny Israel to make contributions to the world so as to better mankind, one has to ask what have those who have strived to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth done other than to create hate and bloodshed." While Norway and Denmark help the Arabs against Israel, the Arabs boycott them all: Denmark, Israel, and, somewhat, Norway. The Scandinavians should reconsider whom they favor. One invention by an Israeli may be beneficial. It is a "lie detector" for a voice medium rather than for in-person examination. Such machines don't detect lies but emotion, sometimes stemming from lies and sometimes not. HELPING ISRAEL OR HELPING THE ARABS Seymour Reich, President of the Israel Policy Forum, wrote a veiled letter to the editor recommending that US Jewry redefine what it means to be pro-Israel. He suggested that the US pursue "a more nuanced approach to achieving a secure and Jewish Israel, which requires a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel." (NY Times, 5/26.) I think his vagueness is craven. He didn't redefine "pro-Israel" nor did he explain what "nuanced" would involve. Neither did he state why Israeli security requires another Arab state. I can, knowing that the Israel Policy Forum is appeasement-minded. He means that US Jewry should be more willing to favor Israeli concessions to the Arabs, and that the US should insist on greater sacrifices be offered the Arabs by Israel. He wants a viable P.A. state, because that means Israel would have to give up a lot of territory to it. Since the P.A. Arabs remain enemies of the US and Israel, his proposals are harmful to both. He has an antisemitic double standard: –– Jews must evacuate from the Territories, but the Arabs needn't evacuate from Israel. Mr. Reich uses the term, Arab "state alongside Israel." There have been other Arab states alongside Israel. They made war on Israel. I suggest that Israel keep the Territories without the Arabs there or in Israel. Then the Palestinian Arab state neighboring Israel would be Jordan, bad enough. My suggestion also disputes the position of Israel, but mine strengthens the Jewish state, whereas his weakens it. 50,000 ARABS LEFT GAZA Since Hamas took over Gaza, 50,000 residents have emigrated, the P.A. Prime Minister claimed, and hundreds of thousands more would like to go. He spoke at a conference on bringing investments into the P.A. (Arutz-7, 5/21). That news is not likely to harvest investments. He did not mention the thousands who fled the whole P.A. under PLO rule. Not so many Christians still flee, because most already have gone. The dwindling Christian minority remains under intolerant and extortionist Muslim pressure to give up their property. Looting by Arab gangsters or terrorists helped prompt thousands of middle class Arabs to flee from Israel, months before the Arabs started war in 1947. If his claim were the only source for it, one might be suspicious that he was just making propaganda against Hamas. But there are reliable such reports. The phenomenon means: (1) Those Arabs may wander out, the way they wandered in, without strong attachment to the Land; (2) This changes the demographic balance, just when leftists have persuaded many people that Israel needs to relinquish the Territories to prevent Israel from being swamped with Arabs; (3) The path for Israel to victory and security is to promote the Arab flight. Those who worry about the demographic balance and conclude that Israel should get the settlers out of Judea-Samaria reveal a hypocrisy if not insincerity in not promoting a favorable balance by expelling the Arabs from Israel. Recently I wrote about an Israeli professor from Hebrew U. who argued for ceding the Territories to favor the demographic balance. Where is his case, now? (I mentioned its other faults, too.) Will he and PM Olmert admit their figures are wrong and their deductions from the incorrect figures are wrong? When will the moralists hold the Palestinian and other Arabs responsible for what they did to themselves? FORMER PRISONERS OF ZION DEMAND COMPENSATION The Soviets persecuted thousands of Zionist Jews in the USSR. Now they are organizing to demand compensation (Arutz-7, 5/21). That would be just. It also is timely, to help balance unfair sympathy for the descendants of Palestinian Arab refugees, who were not persecuted in Israel and whose suffering is their own fault and the fault of the invading Arabs in 1948. Unlike the guilty Arabs, innocent Jewish refugees expelled from Arab countries Jews deserve their property, wrongfully confiscated. But I am writing of justice. There isn't much justice in our world. We need an afterlife in a heaven. P.A. ADMITS ARABS MADE THEMSELVES REFUGEES Arutz-7 added a conclusion I didn't draw in my report of this news. Since the P.A. admits that the Palestinian Arab refugee problem was caused by the Arabs, Israelis should not feel guilty nor beholden about it. They should say refuse admission of more Arabs into Israel (5/21) and the Territories. U.S. STRATEGY FOR P.A. FAILS The US plan was to get P.A. police specially trained and equipped to eradicate terrorism from the P.A.. They would take over security in P.A. cities, to prove that Israel doesn't have to patrol in, nor retain the Territories, for security. The logic of that is specious, even if the plan worked. The P.A. police force comprises mostly terrorists. They could eradicate but more likely would just temporarily repress terrorist gangs. Then when Israel no longer can send in troops at will, the P.A. police would initiate attacks on Israel. Arutz-7 reports that 200 P.A. police in Jenin finally mobilized to confront the terrorists. After half an hour, the police retreated. The US strategy failed. Gen. Dayton spent millions of dollars training the P.A. police. 10% of Dayton's trainees are illiterate. They trained without the equipment they were supposedly being trained to use He blames his trainees' poor showing on Israel allegedly not giving the P.A. police access. In Jenin, they had access. Same for Nablus. There, failure was more dramatic. 300 police tried to storm the base of 13 terrorists whom Israel had released on their promise not to take up arms. The police were repulsed six times! Finally, Israelis had to do the job (5/21). Not that the State Dept. will admit its plan's failure. Not that Israel will admit the failure of relying upon terrorists' promises, in return for being released. I didn't see acknowledgement of this in the NY Times, which does report positive statements abut setting up the plans. (My main reason for Israel to keep the Territories is the Jewish people's ethical and legal claim to them, under the Mandate. Security is a secondary reason. ISRAEL ENDS NATIONAL SERVICE FOR RELIGIOUS GIRLS Several thousand religious girls no longer will be helping at schools, etc. (Arutz-7, 5/21). Secular Jews resent religious people not performing national service. No reason was stated for the government's decision. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear regularly in 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 |
|
MIDDLE EAST FACTS
Posted by Marc Samberg, June 9, 2008. |
|
This comes from
|
|
1. Nationhood and Jerusalem –– Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C.E., two thousand years before the rise of Islam. 2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel. 3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 B.C.E. the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years. 4. Arabs have only had control of Israel twice –– from 634 until the Crusader invasion in June 1099, and from 1292 until the year 1517 when they were dispelled by the Turks in their conquest. 5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit. 6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran. There are vague references to Jerusalem in the Hadiths –– stories about Mohammed –– that he stopped his night journey (which the Koran explains took place in a dream!) at the "farther mosque" (or "distant place"). Muslims explain that this means "at the edge of the Temple mount", although no direct reference to Jerusalem or the Temple Mount is made. 7. King David established the city of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem. 8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Some Muslims (i.e. those between Israel and Saudi Arabia) pray with their backs toward Jerusalem. 9. Arab and Jewish Refugees –– In 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. 10. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms. 11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same. 12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own peoples' lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey. 13. The Arab –– Israeli Conflict –– The Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won. 14. The P.L.O.'s Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land, autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them with weapons. 15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths. 16. The U.N. Record on Israel and the Arabs –– Of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel. 17. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel. 18. The U.N was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians. 19. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives. 20. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall. For more facts, read "The Truth About the Mideast: Fourteen fundamental facts about Israel and Palestine" by David G. Littman. To read it, click here. For more facts about the so-called Israeli Occupation read http://www.middleeastfacts.com/middle-east-facts2.php Contact Marc Samberg at marcsamberg@yahoo.com |
|
SHAVOU'OT (PENTECOST) 2008
Posted by Yoram Ettinger, June 9, 2008. |
|
Enclosed you'll find reflections on Shavou'ot (Pentecost), which I assembled from the writings of Jewish sages. |
|
1. Shavou'ot commemorates the receipt of the Torah, which took place over 3,300 years ago, setting the Jewish People on the moral and physical Road Map to the Land of Israel. Adherence to one's roots bodes well for one's future; detachment from one's Cradle of History dooms one's personal and national future! 2. The receipt of the Torah shaped the nature of the world in general and Western democracies in particular. It is celebrated on the 6th day of the Jewish month of Sivan, 50 days following the Exodus. It took place 26 generations since Adam. The Hebrew words for Jehovah equal 26 in Gimatriya. There are 26 Hebrew letters in the names of the Jewish Patriarchs and Matriarchs: Abraham, Yitzhak, Yaakov, Sarah, Rivka, Rachel and Leah. 3. Seven –– Sheva in Hebrew. Shavou'ot is a derivative of the Hebrew word Shvoua' (vow), referring to the exchange of vows between G-D and the Jewish People. The root of Shvoua' –– and Shavou'ot –– is the Hebrew word Seven-Sheva. Shavou'ot is celebrated 7 weeks following Passover, reflecting the qualities of 7 key Jewish/universal leaders: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aharon, Joseph and David. 7 represents wholesomeness in Judaism –– 7 days of Creation and a 7 day week. The Sabbath is the 7th day, the first Hebrew verse in Genesis consists of 7 words, there are 7 directions (north, south, west, east, up, down, one's own position), 7 gates to The Temple, 7 Noah Commandments, Moses' birth/death was on the 7th day of Adar, Jethro had 7 names and 7 daughters, Passover and Sukkot last for 7 days each, each Plague lasted for 7 days, The Menorah has 7 branches, Jubilee follows seven 7-year cycles, 7 Continents, 7 notes in a musical scale, 7 days of mourning, 7 blessings in a Jewish wedding, 7 Jewish Prophetesses (Sarah, Miriam, Devorah, Chana, Abigail, Choulda and Esther), etc. Pentecost is celebrated –– by Christians –– on the 7th Sunday after Easter. 4. Shared Israel-US (Judeo-Christian) values. Shavou'ot sheds light on the unique covenant between the Jewish State and the USA –– the high regard for the Torah. The Five Books of Moses in particular, and the Old Testament in general, have shaped the morality of Western Democracies, and have impacted the world view of the Pilgrims, the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances and Bill of Rights. John Locke aspired for the "613 Laws of Moses" to become the legal foundation of the new society established in America. Lincoln's famous 1863 quote paraphrased the 14th century John Wycliffe's dedication to his English translation of the Bible: "a book of the people, by the people, for the people." 5. Holiday of unity and responsibility/accountability and optimism –– King David. Shavou'ot is the day of birth/death of King David (as well as the day that Moses was saved by Pharaoh's daughter), who united the Jewish People, elevating them to a most powerful position. David –– along with Moses and Abraham –– was a role model of humility and repentance, hence the Hebrew acronym for Adam (human-being in Hebrew): Abraham, David and Moses. In contrast with King Saul, King David assumed responsibility for his sins. 150 candles are lit at King David's tomb on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem, consistent with the 150 chapters of Psalms mostly attributed to David. 150 is the numerical value of Nest ("Ken" in Hebrew), the warm environment of the Torah. David's personal history (from shepherd to king) provides a lesson for individuals and nations: There's an opportunity for everyone; the road to success is paved with difficulties and ups & downs; human beings are fallible but they must recognize their own fallibility, as a springboard toward improvement. 6. Scroll of Ruth –– King David –– Honor thy mother-in-law. Shavou' ot is highlighted by the studying of the Scroll of Ruth the first of Old Testament's five scrolls: Ruth (read on Shavou'ot), Song of Songs (Passover), Ecclesiastes (Sukkot), Book of Lamentations (Ninth of Av), Esther (Purim). Ruth was the great grandmother of King David. She stuck by her mother-in-law, Naomi, for more than 10 years during Naomi's most difficult times, financially and socially. Ruth, the daughter of Eglon and the granddaughter of Balak, kings of the Moabites, had the option to be reunited with her own People, and be assured of affluence. Ruth's leadership legacy: principles (loyalty, concern, modesty and love) over convenience. Boaz –– the chief of the Sanhedrin (Jewish Legislature) –– attributed his initial affection for Ruth, whom he married, to "I am informed of your support of your Mother-In-Law." The total sum of the Hebrew letters of Ruth –– in Gimatriya –– produce the number of laws granted at Mt. Sinai (606), which together with the 7 laws of Noah total The 613 Laws of Moses. 7. Modesty and humility. The Torah was granted on a small mountain –– to a small People –– in the desert. The Torah was delivered by Moses, "the humblest of all human beings" ("Ha'Anav Ba'Adam"). The content of the Torah doesn't require an impressive stage. Humility –– a prerequisite for absorbing the lessons of the Torah –– is essential for learning and for constructive relationships and leadership. 8. Liberation-Harvest-Optimism. The Torah was granted in the desert, a platform of Liberty, away from physical and spiritual constraints. Celebrated fifty day following the Exodus (physical deliverance) from Egypt, Shavou'ot signifies spiritual liberation. Shavou'ot celebrates the culmination of the agricultural, physical and spiritual harvest season of optimism, which starts on the second day of Passover. Shavou'ot highlights the critical connection between the (Jewish) People and the Land (of Israel). 9. The second of the three pilgrimages. Shavou'ot is one of the 3 Jewish Pilgrimages (Sukkot-Tabernacles, Passover and Shavou'ot), celebrated in the 3rd Jewish month, Sivan. It highlights Jewish Unity, compared (by King Solomon) to a triangular cord, which cannot be broken. The Torah –– the first of the 3 books of the Old Testament –– was granted to the Jewish People (which consists of 3 components: Priests, Levites and Israel), by Moses (who was a 3rd son, brother of Aharon and Miriam), a successor to the 3 Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). Shavou'ot highlights Ruth, who lived 3 generations before King David, son of Jesse, grandson of Ovad, the son of Ruth. The Torah was forged in 3 ways: Fire (commitment to principles), Water (lucidity and purity) and Desert (humility and principle-driven tenacity). 10. Dairy dishes consumed during Shavou'ot, commemorate the most common food –– of shepherds like King David –– during the 40 years in the desert, on the way to the Land of Milk and Honey, the Land of Israel. Unlike wine, milk is poured into simple glasses. The total sum of milk (Chalav in Hebrew) is 40 in Gimatriya, which is equal to the 40 days and nights spent by Moses on Mt. Sinai and the 40 years spent by the Jewish People in the Desert. 40 is also the value of the first Hebrew letter –– "Mem" –– of Moses, Miriam, Manna, Egypt, Desert, Menorah, Tabernacle, Mitzvah (commandment), etc. 40 generations passed from Moses –– who delivered the Torah –– to Rabbi Ashi and Rabina, who concluded the editing of the Talmud. The first and the last letters of the Talmud is the Hebrew "Mem", which equals 40 in Gimatriya. 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.
Previous issues are at
|
|
THE NAME HUSSEIN IS A CURSE
Posted by Resa LaRu Kirkland, June 9, 2008. |
|
From my Space buddy http://www.myspace.com/iranaware |
|
Disgusting.. Five weeks ago Leila Hussein told The Observer the chilling story of how her husband had killed their 17-year-old daughter over her friendship with a British soldier in Basra. Now Leila, who had been in hiding, has been murdered –– gunned down in cold blood. Afif Sarhan in Basra and Caroline Davies report on the final act of a brutal tragedy. Leila Hussein lived her last few weeks in terror. Moving constantly from safe house to safe house, she dared to stay no longer than four days at each. It was the price she was forced to pay after denouncing and divorcing her husband –– the man she witnessed suffocate, stamp on, then stab their young daughter Rand in a brutal 'honour' killing for which he has shown no remorse. Though she feared reprisals for speaking out, she really believed that she would soon be safe. Arrangements were well under way to smuggle her to the Jordanian capital, Amman. In fact, she was on her way to meet the person who would help her escape when a car drew up alongside her and two other women who were walking her to a taxi. Five bullets were fired: three of them hit Leila, 41. She died in hospital after futile attempts to save her. Her death, on 17 May, is the shocking denouement to a tragedy which had its origins in an innocent friendship between her student daughter, Rand Abdel-Qader, 17, and a blond, 22-year-old British soldier known only as Paul. The two had met while Rand, an English student at Basra University, was working as a volunteer helping displaced families and he was distributing water. Although their friendship appears to have involved just brief, snatched conversations over four months, Rand had confided her romantic feelings for Paul to her best friend, Zeinab, 19. She died, still a virgin, four months after she had last seen him when her father, Abdel-Qader Ali, 46, discovered that she had been seen talking 'to the enemy' in public. She had brought shame on his honour, was his defence, and he had to cleanse his family name. Despite openly admitting the murder, he has received no punishment. It was two weeks after Rand's death on 16 March that a grief-stricken Leila, unable to bear living under the same roof as her husband, found the strength to leave him. She had been beaten and had had her arm broken. It was a courageous move. Few women in Iraq would contemplate such a step. Leila told The Observer in April: 'No man can accept being left by a woman in Iraq. But I would prefer to be killed than sleep in the same bed as a man who was able to do what he did to his own daughter. ' Her words were to prove prescient. Leila turned to the only place she could, a small organisation in Basra campaigning for the rights of women and against 'honour' killings. Almost immediately she began receiving threats –– notes calling her a 'prostitute' and saying she deserved to die like her daughter. Even her sons Hassan, 23, and Haydar, 21, whom she claimed aided their father in their sister's killing, disowned her. Meanwhile, her husband, a former government employee, escaped any charges, and even told The Observer that police had congratulated him on what he had done. It is not known who killed Leila. All that is known is that she was staying at the house of 'Mariam', one of the women's rights campaigners, whose identity The Observer has agreed not to reveal. On the morning of 17 May, they were joined by another volunteer worker and set off to meet 'a contact' who was to help Leila travel to Amman, where she would be taken in by an Iraqi family. 'Leila was anxious, but she was also happy at having the chance to leave Iraq,' said Mariam. 'Since the death of her daughter, her own life was at serious risk. And this was a great opportunity for her to leave the country and to fight for Iraqi women's rights.' 'She had not been able to sleep the night before. I stayed up talking to her about her plans after she arrived in Amman. I gave her some clothes to take with her and she was packing the only bag she had. She was too excited to sleep.' Mariam said that when she awoke Leila had already prepared breakfast, cleaned her house and even baked a date cake as a thank-you for the help she had been given. After the arrival of 'Faisal', the volunteer (whose identity is also being protected), the three left the house at 10.30am and started walking to the end of the street to get a taxi. They had walked less than 50 metres when they heard a car drive up fast and then gunshots rang out. The attack, said by witnesses to have been carried out by three men, was over in minutes. Leila was hit by three bullets. Mariam was hit in her left arm and Faisal in her left leg. 'I didn't realise I had been shot for a few seconds, because as I heard the gunfire I saw Leila falling to the ground and saw blood pouring from her head,' said Mariam. 'I was so shocked, I didn't immediately feel the pain.' Two men ran from their homes to help. They rushed Leila to hospital and a passing taxi took the other two. But Leila died at 3.20pm, despite several operations to save her. As she lay in her own hospital bed receiving treatment, Mariam said that she heard someone saying that Leila had been shot in the head. But there were other mutterings that were clearly audible. 'I could hear people talking on the corridors and the only thing that they had to say was that Leila was wrong for defending her daughter's mistakes and that her death was God's punishment. 'In that minute I just had complete hatred in my heart for those who had killed her.' Police said the incident was a sectarian attack and that there was nothing to link Leila's death to her family. 'Her ex-husband was not in Basra when it happened. We found out he was visiting relatives in Nassiriya with his two sons,' said Hassan Alaa, a senior officer at the local police station in Basra. 'We believe the target was the women activists, rather than Mrs Hussein, and that she was unlucky to be in that place at that time.' It is plausible. Campaigners for women's' rights are not acceptable to many sections of Iraqi society, especially in Basra where militias have partial control in some districts and impose strict laws on locals, including what clothing they should wear and what religious practice they should follow. Since February 2006, two other activists from the same women's organisation have been killed in the city. One of them was reportedly raped before being shot. The other, the only man working for the non-governmental organisation (NGO), and a father of five who was responsible for the organisation's finances, was shot five months ago. There could be many with a grudge against such organisations. However, Mariam believes Leila was targeted, pointing out she had been hit by three bullets. 'When we were shot, they focused on Leila, not us,' she said. Since the attack the NGO has stopped its work in Basra. 'We daren't answer the phones because we have received so many threats since we gave our support to Leila's case,' said Mariam. 'Most of our members are preparing to leave the city and even Iraq if they can raise the money.' A single mother since her husband was killed for refusing to join a militia, she too intends to move when she can. Faisal, who also survived her injuries, is still suffering post-surgical infection. She preferred not to speak, but her mother, who wished to remain anonymous, said: 'My daughter is very shocked at what happened, and my two grandsons can't stop crying since they saw her in hospital.' Leila's burial was arranged within hours of her death by the husband of one of her cousins and Mariam's father. The Observer visited Rand's father and two brothers at their Basra home, but they refused to talk beyond Hassan proclaiming his father's innocence. When asked if he would be visiting his mother's grave, he shrugged: 'Maybe in the future.' Leila was an orphan, raised by an uncle who died in the Shia uprising against Saddam Hussein in the early 1990s. Hamida Alaa, 68, a friend of the uncle, said: 'The poor woman was killed and now her name and history is buried with her. No one wants to speak about it. She is just one more woman killed in our country who has already been forgotten by the local society.' In the last days of her life, Leila was suffering from the pressure of having gone against her husband. 'She was sleeping with the help of sedatives,' said Mariam. 'She would wake up at night with terrible nightmares, even dreaming of being suffocated as her daughter was. She had been threatened so many times and that's why she was so scared. Her indignation over Rand's death is what led her to her own coffin. Their history ends here. But Leila was a hero. A woman who was strong enough to say no to Iraqi men's bad attitudes. Sadly most Iraqi women do not have the same strength and they will stay in their homes.' Mariam has moved out of her home. But within hours of speaking to The Observer a close friend went to her new address to deliver a message that had been left for her at her front door. It read: 'Death to betrayers of Islam who don't deserve God's forgiveness. Speaking less you will live more.' She believes it was sent by Leila's killers. 'They want this story to be buried with Leila,' she said. 'But I cannot close my eyes to all this. ' And the story about the daughter.. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love' "If I had realised then what she would become, I would have killed her the instant her mother delivered her. " An update on this honor-killing story.
For Abdel-Qader Ali there is only one regret: that he did not kill his daughter at birth. 'If I had realised then what she would become, I would have killed her the instant her mother delivered her,' he said with no trace of remorse. Two weeks after The Observer revealed the shocking story of Rand Abdel-Qader, 17, murdered because of her infatuation with a British solider in Basra, southern Iraq, her father is defiant. Sitting in the front garden of his well-kept home in the city's Al-Fursi district, he remains a free man, despite having stamped on, suffocated and then stabbed his student daughter to death. Abdel-Qader, 46, a government employee, was initially arrested but released after two hours. Astonishingly, he said, police congratulated him on what he had done. 'They are men and know what honour is,' he said. Rand, who was studying English at Basra University, was deemed to have brought shame on her family after becoming infatuated with a British soldier, 22, known only as Paul. She died a virgin, according to her closest friend Zeinab. Indeed, her 'relationship' with Paul, which began when she worked as a volunteer helping displaced families and he was distributing water, appears to have consisted of snatched conversations over less than four months. But the young, impressionable Rand fell in love with him, confiding her feelings and daydreams to Zeinab, 19. It was her first youthful infatuation and it would be her last. She died on 16 March after her father discovered she had been seen in public talking to Paul, considered to be the enemy, the invader and a Christian. Though her horrified mother, Leila Hussein, called Rand's two brothers, Hassan, 23, and Haydar, 21, to restrain Abdel-Qader as he choked her with his foot on her throat, they joined in. Her shrouded corpse was then tossed into a makeshift grave without ceremony as her uncles spat on it in disgust. 'Death was the least she deserved,' said Abdel-Qader. 'I don't regret it. I had the support of all my friends who are fathers, like me, and know what she did was unacceptable to any Muslim that honours his religion,' he said.... The learned Western analysts will continue to maintain, of course, that this is a cultural practice that has nothing to do with Islam. So how is it that Abdel-Qader got this idea? WARCHICK is Resa LaRu Kirkland. She is a columnist/writer/speaker/military historian/the anti-feminist! Contact her at resalaru@gmail.com. Agree with RESA at: http://www.warchick.com |
|
"SHARIAH GONNORHEA"
Posted by Rock Peters, June 9, 2008. |
|
Married women care to share?
Ladies do you believe
Cheat on your husband?
Wives to your husband
Teenaged girls if your father, mother or brothers don't like your date don't worry you won't have to wait –– they will put you right to death,
In Islam this murder
In America and the West
Gay rights? Homosexuals beware
Gays and lesbians do you hate
Women who like women
Guys with Guys or Girls with Girls
Want to hangout in a gay night club
Gay men do you like getting head?
Hey straight guys want fool around on your wife
Women forget about monogamy and being the only one Muslim men have all the fun they get FOUR wives, And when men go to Muslim paradise
The guys get virgins
Raped women, homosexuals, adulterous women and fornicators
"Sharia Gonorrhea"
Gonorrhea is a social disease
And Islam must be defeated by any force that is necessary!
Rock Peters' multimedia website –– www.godsaveusa.com
–– is dedicated to fighting Muslim terrorism. It is both
factual and attractive. Contact him at rockpeters@aol.com
|
|
JEWS REFUSE TO GIVE UP; SYNAGOGUE REBUILT OUTSIDE HEVRON
Posted by Hillel Fendel, June 6, 2008. |
|
(IsraelNN.com) The Hazon David synagogue outside Hevron was rebuilt for the 33rd time Tuesday night –– as noted by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. IDF forces had destroyed the synagogue, located along Worshipers' Path between Kiryat Arba and Hevron, on Monday night. The government considers it an "unauthorized outpost." Just a day later, on Tuesday evening, Jewish residents of the area rebuilt it –– and this time even larger than before. One of the walls features a giant Jewish star (Magen David). The synagogue was first built in mid-2001 following the terrorist murders of Chezi Mualem and David Cohen. It was allowed to stand for several days, after which the army razed it –– beginning the destroy-rebuild pattern that has continued for no fewer than seven years. The last destruction was on the 41st anniversary of the liberation of Hevron by the IDF from Jordanian forces.
"Because of the army's insensitivity in razing a synagogue on the day we commemorate the liberation of Hevron," said one Kiryat Arba Jew, "we decided that we would build even bigger this time... The army is bothered by the fact that there are some 'rebels' here. They see that we are stubborn and firm, and that we are not willing to compromise." Rice: Not Four, Just Three As dusk approached, the city's Chief Rabbi Dov Lior and Mayor Tzvi Katzover gathered with the builders for the afternoon prayer. The particpants were treated to particular gratification, Yehudit Katzover later said, "when we were told by informed sources that Olmert told [US Secretary of State] Condoleeza [Rice], 'We destroyed four outposts,' and she answered, 'No, only three –– Hazon David has been rebuilt.'"
Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor at
Arutz-Sheva (www.israelnationalnews.com).
This article is archived at
|
|
OLMERT APPEASING SYRIA OUT OF DESPERATION?; ABBAS' BELLICOSE BEHAVIOR
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 6, 2008. |
|
ANSWERING A CRITIC OF ISRAELI SELF-DEFENSE A foreign, Jewish, leftist asked Prof. Steven Plaut his opinion of an Israeli tank shell that killed some civilians. Plaut replied that if the Palestinian Arabs stopped making war on Israelis, Israel wouldn't have to defend itself, sometimes accidentally killing civilians. The Arabs are responsible for that. Why doesn't the critic blame them? The critic thinks it unfair to be called anti-Israel and even antisemitic. He says he is just following the lead of leftist Israelis such as Ury Avnery and Shulamit Aloni, who, Plaut points out, are anti-Israel and even antisemitic, the way the American Left is anti-American. The leftist says he loves Israel and wants it to have peace. Plaut does not believe him. Not after he endorses removal of all Jewish towns from the Territories and the entire Territories' incorporation, with half of Jerusalem, into a new Arab state. That is the position of Arafat, part of his phased plan for the conquest of Israel. It is not a prescription for peace. The foreigner exhibits his animosity towards Israel by endorsing a boycott of Israel's academia and sanctions against the country. He also encourages mutiny and insubordination in the IDF against its self-defense. That is not democratic nor opposition to a particular policy but working to destroy the whole country. Some love for Israel! Actually, Israel has tried to make peace with the Arabs, along the lines the critic suggests. It offered territory and made risky goodwill concessions. The Arabs responded with terrorism. The critic's proposals were counter-productive, because being conciliatory seems to the Arabs as weakness. After hundreds of proofs that his policy doesn't work, why does he continue to propose them? Is he stupid? Or doesn't he really want Israel destroyed? Advocating what he does probably is meant to curry favor with his leftist associates. He is not the good Jew that he claims to be. OLMERT DESPERATE, SO HE APPEASES SYRIA? Rival politicians perceive Olmert's willingness to cede sovereignty over all of the Golan to Syria as desperation over the increasing investigations of his corruption. They think he is trying to show the leftist prosecutors that they need him to carry out their program of appeasement (IMRA, 5/21). Olmert's plan would have a demilitarized zone in the Golan and a park. Once sovereignty is lost, Syrian forces on the Golan past the present, natural barriers could not be stopped if their allies coordinate with them. It also would be Syria's sovereign right to militarize the demilitarized zone. THE GOLAN & NEGOTIATIONS Israel should not be negotiating about the Golan. The US has assured it that it need not come down from the Golan. Letters of assurance were given Israel by Pres. Ford, by Sec. of State Baker, and by Sec. of State Christopher. Pres. Ford noted that any concessions of the Golan discussed with Syria by Israel are mere discussions and not legally binding on future negotiations. Nevertheless, the government of Israel is negotiating about it. Worse, it seems to be agreeing that the new border should cede to Syria parts of Israel that Syria had seized before Israel acquired the Golan. The Left is rewarding Syrian aggression and letting Syria get to Israel's water supply in Lake Kinneret. (That is in addition to proposing to cede access to the mountain aquifer to the P.A. and the Golan's water. Israel has no other significant sources.) Syria might promise to end its alliance with Iran and might even seem to be doing so. That could be a ruse to make the new treaty palatable to Israelis, who at present oppose ceding the Golan by better than 2:1. Then, once the Golan is in Syria's grasp, the current Syrian regime or a future one could resume the alliance. Syria has other interests in common with Iran, so it is not likely to end the alliance. In this missile age, the Golan is more important. Missiles would disrupt Israeli mobilization. Israel's small standing army would have to hold off the numerically superior Syrian forces until it can bring up the disrupted reserves. Israel needs the topographical advantage that the Golan affords, to gain the extra time. Since the Golan is small, relative to modern armies field of battle, any demilitarized zone would have to encompass the entire Golan, and still wouldn't provide Israel with much security, compared with holding the Golan, itself (IMRA, 5/22 from Dore Gold). Many of Israel's military experts, being leftists, overlook military considerations and favor surrendering the Golan. They have given reasons for this before, since then shown to be ujnreliable. They contended that if Assad Sr. were to give his word, he would keep it. He is dead. His successor might be different. They contended that Israel wouldn't need it, because it would get novel weapons that would provide adequate security. Those weapons, however, have been neutralized by other new weapons. They presented best-case scenarios. In the Lebanon War, contingencies intervened. Why does peace depend on giving land to Syria? Syria gave up its territorial demands on Turkey, to make peace with it (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 5/22). BANKING CONFLICT BETWEEN PARTS OF THE P.A. Hamas accused the P.A. of acting illegally in making certain demands of Gaza banks for disclosure. The dispute is over the meaning of two provisions of P.A. regulations (IMRA, 5/26). The notion of legality, like the notion of "rights," is something that the Arabs toss around to impress others. They, themselves, do not follow the rule of law in almost all their domain. In both parts of the P.A., the rulers arrest and torture people at will. Both factions violate the P.A. peace accords. Fatah long extorted from local businesses. Fatah corruption made Hamas more popular. P.A. CONFERENCE ON INVESTMENTS Nevertheless, the P.A. is hoping to attract foreign investors. At a conference on that, Abbas reiterated his demand for eastern Jerusalem and "thanked everyone who has supported the Palestinian national economy, while condemning Israeli practices since the Oslo Accords." He also hoped that Hamas would rescind its coup in Gaza and submit to new elections (IMRA, 5/21). Based on the last election results and current polls, new elections would sweep Hamas into rule in both parts of the P.A.. All the US weapons and training given to the P.A. police would be added to Hamas' forces. All the territory that PM Olmert is planning to give to the P.A. would become bases from which to attack Israel. Is this hard to figure out? Do you think Olmert is unaware of it? Abbas condemned Israeli practices, not the constant P.A. violations and terrorism. He doesn't let up on his unfair or excessive demands and false propaganda. Not the action of someone reputedly moderate and peace-making. TEHRAN U. TO HOST CONFERENCE ON ISRAEL'S END It is a conference of auxiliaries of the Evil Axis on what to complain about Israel and on how to end Israel. Meanwhile, Iran continues developing nuclear weapons. Think it won't use them, or Obama can charm those cobras into not using them, and Israel can relax? What about the millions of Muslims in and around Israel, who would be exterminated, too? Oh, they go straight to heaven; the ayatollahs won't feel sorry for them. The US may figure that Iran would a-bomb Israel before it has missiles capable of reaching the US. Before those missiles develop, the US would destroy Iran and secretly assure Arab leaders that the US let Iran annihilate Israel. (IMRA, 5/21.) Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear regularly in 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 |
|
IS IT TIME FOR THE DIASPORA TO RECONSIDER SUPPORT OF ISRAEL?
Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, June 6, 2008. |
|
It's like a broken record...the same story being replayed over and over again...truly, ad nauseam. Israel captures live Arab disembowelers, plotters, and murderer wannabes of Jews, and other Jews have to pay to keep them alive in Israeli jails. That is, until the inevitable happens, and Arabs later capture some more live Jews. They then offer a swap in exchange for hundreds of their comrades. If the Jews are lucky, they get back a live prisoner or so. In just one example, in 1985 they exchanged almost 1,200 Arabs for three of their own. In January 2004, Israel handed over more than 400 Arabs in return for one Israeli businessman and the bodies of three soldiers abducted along the Lebanese border in 2000. Usually, the deal involves a few dead Jews for hundreds of Arab killers and collaborators –– who are soon back in the Jew-killing business. And I bet you thought Jews were smart... Well, guess what? Here we go again. This time, the potential swap is for a few more Israeli soldiers kidnapped from within Israel by Hizbullah in another cross border raid. Recall the war that this triggered back in 2006. Among the other prizes Israel holds alive is Samir Kuntar, a Lebanese who the Jews have supplied room and board to for almost three decades. Good way to spend Jewish Diaspora funds, heh? Kuntar's relevant bio is educational –– and only emphasizes how dumb Jews really can be. On April 22, 1979, Kuntar led a team who entered Israel from Lebanon by boat. All were members of the Palestine Liberation Front. Around midnight they reached the coastal town of Nahariya. After killing a policeman, the team entered a building and split into two groups. One of these next broke into the apartment of the Haran family. Danny Haran was taken hostage along with his four-year-old daughter, Einat. Danny's wife, Smadar, hid in a crawl space with their two-year-old daughter, Yael, and a neighbor. Kuntar's group next dragged Danny and Einat down to the beach, where a shootout with Israeli forces erupted. Kuntar shot Danny at close range in front of his daughter and drowned him in the sea to ensure that he was dead. Next, he smashed the four year old girl's head on beach rocks, crushing her skull with the butt of his rifle. Meanwhile, back in the crawl space, 2-year-old Yael Haran had been accidentally suffocated to death by her mother's attempts to quiet her whimpering so as not to reveal their hideout...a story right out of the Holocaust. While Kuntar's exploits rank "up there" with Arabs as far as his heroics against Jews go, he is by no means an exception to the rule. Back in May 2004, Arabs gunned down a pregnant Jewish mother and her four terrified little daughters in their station wagon. After spraying the car with gunfire, they next ran up and blasted each of their victims' heads to make sure they had finished the job. One of the Arab heroes next deliberately shot the swollen belly of the eight-months pregnant mother, Tali Hatuel, at point-blank range. Rescuers found Tali's dead baby still strapped in her car seat. Note, please, that all of these Jewish victims were/are deliberately targeted –– not accidentally caught in the middle because their own folks used them as human shields –– a favorite tactic used by so-called Arab "militants." And Jews don't throw Arab children out of school windows, blow them up on buses, in pizzerias, ice cream parlors, shopping malls, and restaurants, murder them in their beds, and so forth. Now, combine the above lunacy (knowing the costly predictable blackmail that awaits, the Samir Kuntars should never be taken alive, and if they are, after a quick trial, should be executed soon afterwards) with the additional death wish of still too many Israelis who believe that if they just keep on making concession after concession to Arabs on crucial security issues (checkpoints, territory, etc.), the Arabs will finally let their microscopic Jewish rump state live in peace. Peace alright...peace of the grave. And it's that obvious. That others pressure Israel to act against its own basic needs and interests is no surprise –– the American State Department, Dhimmi Europe, and so forth. So the Jewish State should be used to this by now. That Israel allows itself to be bullied this way –– regardless of the aid issue and such –– is beyond pathetic. It truly borders on suicidal, and such behavior should not be repeatedly rewarded. Why is Olmert still in power, for example? Why can't the selfish portions of his fragile coalition not see the forest of their miniscule State's survival and existence for their own individual trees? How much longer must it take before a new Israeli leadership arises which will not behave like someone else's collective stooge and fool? Olmert now seeks to appease Baby Assad –– the late Butcher's son –– with the gift of all the territory Syria has repeatedly used to attack Jews from –– the Golan. Think of how borders constantly have changed all over the world due to such aggressive, murderous behavior as Syria's...not to mention the fact that the Golan was to be part of the original 1920 Mandate Of Palestine after World War I until the Brits and the French did some imperial trading. Or that numerous peoples besides Arabs ruled the Golan Heights over the centuries...including Jews. And what of Syria's oppressive shenanigans in Lebanon, burying the hopes of those who wanted a better, independent, and more peaceful path for their country? Or their continued murderous suppression of millions of Syrian Kurds? Should Israel also simply ignore all of this too in its quest to become a state like all others, with no friends, just interests? That's where it's anti-Jewish, post-Zionist path has been leading it. So, how to get the message across that such consistent self-destructive behavior cannot continue? Think about it... Perpetually victimized and demonized Jews waited for millennia to finally live to see the Hebraic Prophetic resurrection of Israel, only to see spineless leaders with head-in-the sand Jewish supporters undo the dream. Perhaps the time has come to send a real wake up call...and it will indeed be a hard one for Diaspora Jews to deliver. Yet I do believe that such things as the refusal to enact the death penalty for the deliberate butchers of innocents (and please don't sing me the tune about allegedly stooping to their level) and the refusal to demand the reasonable territorial compromises which were allowed by UNSC Resolution 242 require drastic action at this time. Diaspora Jews have poured many billions of dollars into Israel for well over a century now. While this doesn't give them the right to tell Israel what its policies should be, on the other hand, the Diaspora does not have to continue to support policies which are obviously dead end, both figuratively and literally. Israel doesn't have to continuously prove how much "better" it is than most of the giant dung heap which surrounds it. Yet it continues to act this way...not that it makes any difference to the worlds' hypocrites. If Samir Kuntar was a Jew, Kurd, Berber, Copt, Black Sudanese, etc. and committed these acts against any of those "Arab" states in which those non-Arab people live or have lived, he would not have lived to see the light of day. Yet as I write this, Islamist student organizations are intimidating Jews on Israeli college campuses, Jews are being attacked by Israeli Arab neighbors, treasonous Arab members of the Israeli Parliament side with Hamas against Israel and so forth. Again, imagine any of the almost two dozen Arab countries allowing anything like this... The Diaspora does not have to continue to pump money into a post-Zionist state which insists it's going to out Christian the Christians by turning cheek after cheek after cheek to enemies which will never accept a permanent Jewish neighbor, regardless of size. Forget about those Arab Knesset members...The actions of recent Israeli leaders who have played along with the Arabs' well-known destruction in phases plans borders on treason itself –– regardless of who is tightening the screws from abroad. Something is needed to open up the eyes of too many in Israel who have forgotten what life was like for Jews all over the world before the miraculous Phoenix arose from the ashes of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Perhaps a severe shock is what's really needed right now to bring the forest back into vision...and one long enough to drive home the message. I realize it's controversial. It's hard to say "no" to the many worthy charities and such pulling at Diaspora heartstrings. But if business stays as usual regarding current Israeli behavior, Iran's Ahmadinejad will be correct regarding his death forecast for the Jewish State. And the Jews will largely have done it to themselves. If Israel can no longer count on Diaspora money to fill the many gaps in society which depend upon it, and it then has to use funds targeted for defense and elsewhere to cover those costs, perhaps the message will finally get through. The heirs of Ben-Gurion, Jabotinsky, Golda, Begin, and a younger Arik must now come to the fore and take their rightful place. And an Israeli public finally awoken from its slumber must know how to respond. Gerald A. Honigman, a Florida educator, has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in both the print media and on websites. Contact him at honigman6@msn.com or go to his website: http://geraldahonigman.com/blog.php |
|
WHY WAS BARAK PUSHING FOR CEASEFIRE WITH HAMAS?
Posted by HaDaR, June 6, 2008. |
|
This is this week's commentary by Aaron Lerner. Dr. Lerner is Director of IMRA, Independent Media Review and Analysis, an Israel-based news organization which provides an extensive digest of media, polls and significant interviews and events relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il Write him at imra@netvision.net.il |
|
Wonder why the folks working with DM Barak are so interested in a ceasefire even though they know damn well that the result will be a stronger, more dangerous Hamas that Israel will inevitably have to battle? Simple. These are the same people who are getting flack today for the inability of the IDF to stop the ongoing rocket and mortar attacks in the South. A ceasefire means a temporary dramatic reduction in attacks and, in turn, a temporary end to the embarrassing media coverage and pubic criticism. And later? When Hamas is even stronger their attacks will be even more vicious and threaten more of Israel so the public and the world (read USA) will be more willing to accept a more savage Israeli response and the Israeli public will be more willing to accept greater IDF casualties in the inevitable operation. That's the sophisticated argument. It is an immoral one, however, because it means knowingly creating a situation in which more Israelis die out of the expectation of a PR gain from those deaths. If these people can't figure out how to stop this madness without relying on heavy Israeli losses to justify the operation then they should step aside. Turning citizens into "PR fodder" is a monstrous and unacceptable strategy. HaDaR can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net. |
|
FROM ISRAEL: SHIFTING
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 6, 2008. |
|
The situation. Sometimes I see us simply going in the most frustrating circles, but now (very tentatively) I see a shift in some of what we're dealing with. We might start with the chances for an agreement with the PA. It's been unsettling, to say the least. There has been fear of a divided Jerusalem and of forced withdrawal from Jewish communities beyond the Green Line. But now, even though we must continue to be on our guard and to fight against the staged destruction of Israel, the chances of a negotiated agreement between us and the Palestinians seems much reduced. I have already written about Abbas's call to renew talks with Hamas (without demanding it first relinquish Gaza). But yesterday Abbas has made his position even firmer: He is calling for talks based on the Yemenite initiative. That's the initiative that brought about a signed document that Abbas walked away from within hours after the PA representative put his name to the paper. At that point Abbas was walking a fine line between relationship with Hamas and keeping the West happy. This is what seems to have shifted at present. At a gathering in Ramallah yesterday, Abbas said if we want peace we must withdraw to the lines of June 4, 1967 (essentially the Green Line). He's giving notice that no compromise will be forthcoming, and that with everything else he expects us to give them the Kotel and the Temple Mount. Abbas says he will spare no efforts in restoring "national unity." He has thrown in his lot with Hamas rather than the West. Because of his enormous weakness, something like this was fairly predictable. He may backtrack again, if he sees loss of Western materiel and financial support. But my betting is that this is the way he's headed. ~~~~~~~~~~ According to Khaled Abu Toameh, most Palestinian analysts see this move by Abbas as a reflection of his disillusionment with negotiations. But, says Abu Toameh, there are those who believe this is a ploy to gain concessions from us. Said one such analyst, "Abbas is telling Israel, either you give me everything I want, or I go to Hamas." In his dreams. There's a signal lesson here. Each time efforts are made toward negotiations, there is talk of moderation, and hope for peace. But the Palestinians have never compromised. They always expect, somehow, to get it all and have prepared their populations to expect nothing less. As the Palestinian political rhetoric becomes more radical and Hamas influence is greater, the situation becomes less and less flexible. I do not believe Abbas wants to compromise, but even if he did, his throat (literally) might be slit if he tried to do so. ~~~~~~~~~~ Olmert's visit with President Bush has been declared a huge success, as the US-Israel strategic alliance is strengthened in the face of the Iranian threat. Bush has agreed to connect Israel to an advanced US satellite system that warns of the launching of ballistic missiles immediately after they are launched. Additionally, we are to be given permission to purchase F-35 single engine, single seater stealth fighter jets, which will upgrade our capabilities. We may also be able to purchase F-22 "Raptor" single seater, double engine jets. Until now this hasn't been possible because of a ban on their sale to foreign countries, which US House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair, Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), now indicated he's in favor of lifting in Israel's case. "I'm a strong supporter of Israel getting all the material and equipment they need," he said. ~~~~~~~~~~ The F-22 is exceedingly important to the Israeli capability to hit Iran, as it can fly into enemy airspace without being detected. This, of course, is very much to the point in terms of US willingness to consider supplying us now. After meeting with Bush, Olmert declared that he had "fewer questions" regarding the US determination and plans for dealing with Iran. "...every day we are making real strides towards dealing with this problem more effectively." Perhaps Bush has reassured Olmert on US intentions to hit Iran. What is clear is that the US is making it more possible for us to do so if the US does not. And the betting here is that we will if, indeed, the US does not. ~~~~~~~~~~ Yesterday morning, a mortar shell killed Amnon Rosenberg of Kibbutz Nirim and wounded five others. Hamas has claimed credit. I'm almost embarrassed to report that Olmert, headed back to Israel, has declared that the day of reckoning is close and there may be a major Gaza operation soon. How many times can he say this without actually doing it? What has happened how, interestingly, is that Barak, who had been pushing for that ceasefire is now said to be in favor of an operation as well, declaring that Hamas will pay a price before there is a ceasefire. So perhaps (just perhaps) the political climate has shifted here. ~~~~~~~~~~ Members of Labor are now saying that unless Kadima holds a primary soon to remove Olmert from the head of the party, they will support Silvan Shalom's efforts to pass a bill to dissolve the Knesset. With all of the political jockeying, this is a wait and see situation. Wait and hope, perhaps. ~~~~~~~~~~ Obama. I had not intended to start writing about him so soon, but what he has done is so blatant, so indicative of the problems he presents, that I must. At the AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) meeting the other day, he declared, to rousing cheers, that he was for an "undivided Jerusalem." But now he has backtracked in a clarification. Explained a member of his campaign: "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties." Obama, it was explained, is certainly in favor of Jerusalem remaining Israel's capital. But he does not rule out Jerusalem also being the capital of a Palestinian state, or Palestinian sovereignty over certain neighborhoods. So, what does a "united Jerusalem" mean? "...it's not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967." Huh?? "United Jerusalem" universally refers to Jerusalem remaining united under Israeli rule. To have used this term to mean something else, without clarification, was misleading and rings all sorts of bells. My own guess is that when Obama spoke at the AIPAC meeting, he was, in essence, shooting from the hip, providing a vision that would appeal to his audience. And then, when pro-Palestinians expressed fury (this I know happened), he needed to have his campaign "clarify" to mollify them. Indeed, this rings all sorts of bells regarding sincerity as versus lip service, and raises serious questions about what his "real" positions are. ~~~~~~~~~~ Before closing, I want to look at one other aspect of Obama's campaign that is exceedingly troubling: His choice of Daniel Kurtzer as a key advisor on Middle East issues (and someone who would likely get a major post should Obama win). For those of us in the know, Daniel Kurtzer is recognized as very problematic for Israel: When Kurtzer did his Ph.D. at Columbia, he blamed Israel for the "radicalization" of the Palestinians, and he referred to the terrorists as "guerillas." A bad sign. A worse sign: He was a speechwriter for James Baker, who is a hater of Israel and the Jews. According to Joseph Farah, "Probably more than any other State Department official, Kurtzer has been instrumental in promoting the goals of the Palestinians and in raising their grievances to the center of the U.S. policymaking agenda." In a recently written book, co-authored with Scott Lasensky, Kurtzer expresses the following opinions: –– that the US is "overly deferential" to the stated political problems of Israel –– that the US should work to balance "asymmetries" in the power between the Palestinians and Israel He further expresses the attitude that the end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the key to peace in the Middle East. This is patent nonsense as it ignores Shiite-Sunni tensions, and the Jihad goals of militant Islam, which will persist no matter what Israel does. But he actually sees fit to place blame on Israel for inclinations among militant Islamists to attack the West –– Daniel Pipes has just written about this, and puts the onus on us for resolving this conflict (which means he would just as soon see us disappear). A Middle East structured as Kurtzer would have it would weaken all US goals and interests in this part of the world and actually foster extremism. The Islamists see Israel as the "little Satan" –– a tool of America, and America as the "big Satan." If we are weakened, then the radicals are encouraged that they are winning the battle against America. And you can believe it, the battle IS against America. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
OBAMA'S BRILLIANT CAREER AS DEFENDER OF ISRAEL LASTS ABOUT ONE DAY
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 6, 2008. |
|
This below is an excerpt from "Obama clarifies united Jerusalem
comment," by Hillary Leila Krieger for the Jerusalem Post, June
6 (thanks to Infidels Are Cool). It was posted by Robert Spencer
on Jihad Watch [Editor's Note: Well as Humpty Dumpty said, "[a word] means just what I choose it to mean..." And Obama's spin: and I can choose it to mean different things at different times.] |
|
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama did not rule out Palestinian sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem when he called for Israel's capital to remain "undivided," his campaign told The Jerusalem Post Thursday. "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," Obama declared Wednesday, to rousing applause from the 7,000-plus attendees at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference. But a campaign adviser clarified Thursday that Obama believes "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties" as part of "an agreement that they both can live with." "Two principles should apply to any outcome," which the adviser gave as: "Jerusalem remains Israel's capital and it's not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967." He refused, however, to rule out other configurations, such as the city also serving as the capital of a Palestinian state or Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods. "Beyond those principles, all other aspects are for the two parties to agree at final status negotiations," the Obama adviser said. Many on the right of the political spectrum among America's Jews welcomed Obama's remarks at AIPAC, but the clarification of his position left several cold. "The Orthodox Union is extremely disappointed in this revision of Senator Obama's important statement about Jerusalem," said Nathan Diament, director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. He had sent out a release Wednesday applauding Obama's Jerusalem remarks in front of AIPAC. "In the current context, everyone understands that saying 'Jerusalem... must remain undivided' means that the holy city must remain unified under Israeli rule, as it has been since 1967," Diament explained. "If Senator Obama intended his remarks at AIPAC to be understood in this way, he said nothing that would reasonably lead to such a different interpretation." Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America and another Jewish activist who had originally lauded Obama's statement, now called the candidate's words "troubling." "It means he used the term inappropriately, possibly to mislead strong supporters of Israel that he supports something he doesn't really believe," Klein charged.... >Yep. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
SYRIA'S GENOCIDAL INTENTIONS
Posted by Louis Rene Beres, June 6, 2008. |
|
This was written by Zalman Shoval and Louis Rene
Beres and it appeared May 30, 2008 in the Washington Times.
|
|
Israel must not surrender Golan Heights Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is once again raising the issue of Golan surrender. Oddly, Mr. Olmert ought to have already learned the perils of land for nothing from his prior fiasco in the wake of last year's Lebanon war. He claimed success for getting the Lebanese army stationed in southern Lebanon: Yet the largely Shiite military force capitulated rapidly and predictably to Hezbollah. Significantly, any Israeli retreat from the Golan –– an area roughly the size of New York City's borough of Queens –– could produce very similar losses. Syria had already taken steps to "go nuclear." These steps, which involved North Korea, were reportedly ended by Israel on September 6, 2007. Yet now, –– and even without any pressure from Washington –– Mr. Olmert is willing to consider giving up the 452-square-mile Golan Heights to Damascus. The prime minister seems propelled by two distinct motives. He seeks to strengthen his hand in domestic politics. Perhaps, he also wants to put pressure on the Palestinians and signal that the "peace train" could leave without them. But both of his calculations are bound to boomerang. Syria, like Iran, makes no secret of its genocidal intentions toward Israel. Both actively support a number of major terrorist groups. Syria maintains especially important links to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the PFLP-GC and Hezbollah –– which is an Iranian proxy. Al Qaeda, which also has close ties to Iran, could exploit new opportunities on a surrendered Golan. On May 16, Osama bin Laden –– in a statement intended to coincide with celebrations of Israel's 60th-anniversary –– announced that the Palestinian cause was now at the core of his jihad. Although the Golan has no clear connection to this particular cause –– and although bin Laden's third statement of 2008 is inconsistent with previously listed al Qaeda priorities –– any Golan surrender to Syria could strengthen al Qaeda. It is also true that there is no single "Palestinian cause": There is only a myriad of different and often conflicting objectives. Syria cannot afford to detach itself from Iran because Tehran provides the minority Allawi regime with protection against the Sunni majority in Syria. Also, Syria's dominant position in Lebanon is contingent on Hezbollah. Any Israeli Golan withdrawal could leave the northern region of Israel open to wider Syrian or even Iranian invasion through the Jordan Valley. Over time, hundreds of assaults on the Land of Israel, west of the Jordan, have been launched from or through the Golan. A Golan withdrawal would also destroy at least 32 Jewish communities and threaten Israel's water supply. The Golan has long occupied a place of historic importance in the creation and re-creation of Jewish nationhood. But even from a narrow security standpoint, Mr. Olmert's flawed reasoning lies in the gravely obvious limits of international law and diplomacy. Also problematic for Israel are ever-changing missile and satellite technologies –– which could expose the Jewish state to unanticipated risks. For security alone, the Israeli military must retain its positions on the Golan –– especially on Mt. Hermon. After the June 1967 war, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff issued a major report advising permanent Israeli retention of the Golan. Nothing has changed to alter the validity of this recommendation. Indeed, Golan surrender could also enlarge the prospect of war on the Lebanese front and the corollary influence of assorted terrorist factions. Israel and the United States have coincident regional security interests. Both countries should now stand together against a determined Syrian enemy in the Middle East. It is not in Israel's or America's interest to encourage renewed Syrian aggression, or to enlarge opportunities for radical Islamist sanctuaries. Religion notwithstanding, operational collaboration between Shi'ite and Sunni terrorists would be likely on all fronts. Iranian intelligence first met with Osama bin Laden at the Khartoum jihadist conferences of 1992-1993. Israel formally annexed the Golan in 1981 –– after defeating Syrian aggression in June 1967, and after the Yom Kippur aggressions of October 1973. The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled conclusively on Israel's sovereignty over the Golan: "Wherever in the law it says Israel or the State of Israel," said the Court, "Ramat HaGolan is included." Neither Israel nor the United States has anything to gain from Golan surrender. Syria might agree, on paper, to some form of "demilitarization." But once the territory is actually back in Syrian hands, the area would be quickly re-militarized by Damascus. These crucial points should not be overlooked in Jerusalem or Washington. Louis Rene Beres is professor of international law at Purdue University and an author. Former Israeli Ambassador Zalman Shoval (1990-93 and 1998-2000) is president of the Israel America Chamber of Commerce. |
|
CLOSING PANDORA'S BOX
Posted by Marc Silverberg, June 5, 2008. |
|
On May 21, 2008, the French Court of Appeals found in favor of Philippe Karsenty, the head of the media watchdog group Media Ratings, by overturning a lower court decision that found Karsenty had libeled France-2 TV and its Jerusalem Bureau Chief Charles Enderlin when he accused them of knowingly misleading the world about the death of a Palestinian child (Muhammad al-Dura) in the Gaza Strip in September 2000. In the footage used by France-2 in its report, both father and son are shown crouching against a wall following which there is a cut to an apparently dead boy lying in his father's arms. The clip does not show the child being shot although a voice-over by Enderlin (who was not on the scene at the time) informs viewers that the boy had been shot to death by the Israelis. But from an analysis of all the data from the scene including the location of the IDF position, the trajectory of the bullets, the location of the father and the son behind a barrier, the cadence of the bullet fire, the angle at which the bullets penetrated the wall behind them, the hours of the events, and the fact that only seven bullet holes can be seen behind the al-Duras despite repeated statements by the Palestinian cameraman that the child survived forty-five minutes of continuous gunfire from Israeli forces –– all the evidence suggested that the bullet that apparently killed the child could not have been fired by IDF soldiers but was almost certainly fired from Palestinian positions, if in fact, the boy had been shot at all. It transpired that the Palestinians that day had deliberately "created" many other scenes for the cameras.(1) As David Gelernter writing in the Los Angeles Times (September 9, 2005) reminds us about video lies: "A boy named Mohammed al Dura did die in a Gaza hospital that day, (but) his face doesn't match the face in the (France-2) video." Subsequent investigations proved that the France-2 TV film broadcast on September 20, 2000 had been significantly doctored. Video taken by other photographers at the time showed passersby walking unconcernedly between the al-Duras crouching behind a concrete barrel and the Israeli position from which the bullets were supposedly fired. As Denis Jeambar, editor-in-chief of the French news weekly l'Express, and filmmaker Daniel Leconte, who saw raw, unedited video of the shooting taken by the France-2 network noted: "If they had been Israeli bullets, they would be very strange bullets because they would have needed to go around the corner." The last frames –– which come after the heart-rending sequence that concluded the broadcast version –– show the "dead" boy moving his arm and opening his eyes in front of the camera after he had been "killed". Nor does the absence of any blood whatsoever on either the father of the son suggest that any "killing" occurred at that time or place. In 2004, Karsenty published an article calling for the resignation of Enderlin and another France-2 employee for staging the Al-Dura boy's death. France-2 sued Karsenty for libel and won the case in October, 2006. Karsenty's lawyer had asked that the court rule in favor of Karsenty in light of the evidence that had been provided, but the court found him guilty of libel. Enderlin and France-2 were awarded symbolic damages of one euro each, and Karsenty was ordered to pay a small fine and court costs. Karsenty, however, demanded justice. He appealed the court decision and the Appeals Court overturned the libel decision. The al-Dura "tragedy" has finally been exposed as another piece of tragic Palestinian street theater with the Arab propaganda machine being enabled, magnified, and laundered by the international media. Unfortunately, justice delayed is now justice denied. The story of the apparent 55-second filmed death of the 12-year old became the symbol of the second Palestinian intifada and the fallout from the al-Dura lie has had global implications. Millions of TV viewers witnessed the al-Dura child's "death" and heard the accusation that the Israelis had caused it. Overnight, al-Dura became the symbol of Palestinian suffering, the Palestinian martyr whose blood had to be avenged by the Muslim and Western world and Israel would pay dearly for it. As Nidra Poller wrote in the March 2004 issue of Commentary:" Wafa Samir al-Bis, an aspiring twenty-one-year-old shahida, or "martyr," was apprehended by Israeli guards at the Erez checkpoint in Gaza and found to be carrying 20 pounds of explosives in her underwear.......Her goal .........was to blow herself up and kill as many young people as possible. Asked why she was aiming specifically at children, she replied that she wanted to retaliate for the death of Muhammad al-Dura." Nor was she alone. Al Dura's death turned into a blood libel accompanied by terror and violence, and it has become the altar upon which Israel is to be sacrificed. The images of the father bobbing back and forth over the body of his dead child quickly became a symbol used by Arabs to fan the flames of anti-Israel hatred and to reinforce the Palestinian "struggle" against the Israeli "occupation". Streets, squares, and schools have since been named for the young Islamic shahid. His death scene has been replicated on postage stamps and has even made an iconic appearance in the video of Daniel Pearl's beheading. In the immediate aftermath of the al-Dura incident, two Israeli reservists were lynched and mutilated in Ramallah by Arab rioters screaming al-Dura's name. Bin Laden even referred to the al-Dura incident in a post 9/11 video. A doctored photo was produced for Arab-Muslim viewers featuring a superimposed image of an Israeli soldier shooting the boy at close range. The Arab League dedicated October 1st as the Day of Arab Children in honor of Muhammad al-Dura and Iran named more than one hundred and fifty schools after the boy. The al Dura blood libel has accounted for countless murals and wall posters, an al-Qaeda recruiting video and even an epic Palestinian poem by Mahmoud Darwish. The world has been flooded with pictures of the dead child and the gullible international media published headlines that read: "Israel murders Palestinian children." If it bleeds; it reads, especially if Israel is deemed the perpetrator. The al Dura hoax has reinforced one of Europe's most cherished assumptions –– that Israel was, is and remains a vicious Nazi-like entity that deliberately murders Palestinian children. Polls conducted in Europe after the al Dura "slaughter" identified Israel as the greatest threat to world peace, greater than Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and Syria. The case has become one of the pillars upon which these assumptions relied. The fact that it was all a vicious lie is irrelevant. The harm has already been done. The al-Dura frenzy has become part of an insidious campaign in which Western media outlets have allowed themselves to be manipulated by dishonest, politically motivated sources as was the case with the 2002 Jenin "massacre" that never was, the doctored Reuters photographs from Israel's war against Hezbollah in 2006, the "murder" of Rachel Corrie, the "apartheid wall" allegations and the Hamas-directed humanitarian crisis in Gaza. In Greek mythology, Pandora opened a box that contained all the evils of mankind –– greed, vanity, slander, envy and lying. The al Dura case stands as testament that once evil have been released, it is impossible to control it. There is no way to undo the damage that has been inflicted on Israel's international image by the France-2 TV report or to restore the lives of the Israeli and Jewish victims destroyed as vengeance for al-Dura's "death." Lies can kill, and in this case, they have. ENDNOTE (1) Israeli commentator Amnon Lord's account of the larger scene at Netzarim Junction when the boy was supposedly shot to death describes "incongruous battle scenes complete with wounded combatants and screeching ambulances played out in front of an audience of laughing onlookers, while makeshift movie directors do retakes of botched scenes." Contact Mark Silverberg at jfednepa@epix.net |
|
CHANGE –– OBAMA PLAYS PRETEND AT AIPAC TODAY
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 5, 2008. |
|
This was posted by Gateway Pundit yesterday on his website and is
archived at
|
|
Barack Obama attended a church for 20 years that supported Hamas and attacked Jews. Today Barack Obama spoke at AIPAC. Barack Obama pretended to have a strong record of support for Israel.
NPR posted his speech to AIPAC from earlier today.
...There are those who would continue and intensify this failed status quo, ignoring eight years of accumulated evidence that our foreign policy is dangerously flawed. And then there are those who would lay all of the problems of the Middle East at the doorstep of Israel and its supporters, as if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root of all trouble in the region. These voices blame the Middle East's only democracy for the region's extremism. They offer the false promise that abandoning a stalwart ally is somehow the path to strength. It is not, it never has been, and it never will be. But when Barack Obama was asked last month about Israel's drag on America, he replied, "...I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy." More Obama at AIPAC: That starts with ensuring Israel's qualitative military advantage. I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat –– from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade –– investments to Israel's security that will not be tied to any other nation. First, we must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. Going forward, we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO. And I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world. Obama opposed missile defense. More Obama at AIPAC: ...There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot. The Israelis and the Palestinian Authority warned us at the time against holding these elections. But this administration pressed ahead, and the result is a Gaza controlled by Hamas, with rockets raining down on Israel. Hamas controls Gaza because Israel withdrew from the strip not because of democratic elections. More Obama at AIPAC: ...The threats to Israel start close to home, but they don't end there. Syria continues its support for terror and meddling in Lebanon. And Syria has taken dangerous steps in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, which is why Israeli action was justified to end that threat. Obama questioned Israel's bombing of the Syrian nuclear plant last year. More Obama at AIPAC: ...The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat. Barack Obama told a crowd of 75,000 last month that Iran is not a threat. More Obama at AIPAC: When I opposed the war, I warned that it would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East. That is precisely what happened in Iran –– the hard-liners tightened their grip, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president in 2005. And the United States and Israel are less secure. There is no proof that Ahmadinejad was elected because of the Iraq War. Ahmadinejad and the other Iranian leaders are all Israel haters. More Obama at AIPAC: Sen. McCain offers a false choice: stay the course in Iraq, or cede the region to Iran. I reject this logic because there is a better way. Keeping all of our troops tied down indefinitely in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran –– it is precisely what has strengthened it. It is a policy for staying, not a plan for victory. Obama was for surrender in Iraq even if it resulted in genocide. More Obama at AIPAC: Only recently have some come to think that diplomacy by definition cannot be tough. They forget the example of Truman, and Kennedy and Reagan. These presidents understood that diplomacy backed by real leverage was a fundamental tool of statecraft. And it is time to once again make American diplomacy a tool to succeed, not just a means of containing failure. Kennedy's meeting with Khrushchev was a complete disaster. The Berlin Wall was erected 39 days after the meetings. More Obama at AIPAC: If Iran fails to change course when presented with this choice by the United States, it will be clear –– to the people of Iran, and to the world –– that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation... Iran is already withholding key information. More Obama at AIPAC: Their legacy is our inheritance. We must not allow the relationship between Jews and African Americans to suffer. This is a bond that must be strengthened. Obama has a career record of aligning himself with positions embraced by the Israeli peace camp and its American supporters. If there is any doubt on Obama's pro-Palestinian background, the
video from yesterday ought to end that discussion: Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF JEWS FROM EGYPT APPEALS TO UNESCO
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 5, 2008. |
|
Press Release Historical Society of Jews from Egypt Appeals to UNESCO:
New York. June 5th, 2008 The Historical Society of Jews from Egypt is a New York-based non-profit organization whose members come from a worldwide Diaspora of Jews exiled from Egypt since the 1950's, now numbering close to half a million individuals. Years of requests to the Egyptian authorities for access and the right to photocopy the documents of the Jewish patrimony were met with obfuscation and silence. In view of the candidacy of Egypt's Minister of Culture to head the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the Historical Society of Jews from Egypt (HSJE) has asked UNESCO to convince Egypt on its behalf and take custody of a copy of these archives under the Organization's World Heritage protection In response to its members' expressions of concern at the controversy surrounding press reports of Minister Farouk Hosni's 10th of May statement that he "would himself, burn any Israeli book found in Egypt", HSJE has appealed directly to UNESCO. In a letter to UNESCO Director-General, Koichiro Matsuura, HSJE Director, Desire L. Sakkal, noted " the communiqué of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre questioning the worthiness of Egyptian Culture Minister, Farouk Hosni, as a candidate for the next Director-General of your eminent organization. " Sakkal stated that "we feel that this has provided Mr. Hosni a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate his generosity to civilization and to cultures, as also his rejection of anti-Semitism.? The letter explained that "our registries and archives held in Cairo and Alexandria represent our history and acknowledge our identity as Jews originally from Egypt. All our attempts over the past decade, to get access from the Egyptian authorities to photocopy these documents, have failed.? The HSJE thus urged UNESCO "to take custody of this "intangible heritage" of the Jews from Egypt, by negotiating with Mr. Hosni on our behalf the requested photocopying of our registers and archives in Egypt and then to hold these copies under UNESCO World Heritage protection." The appeal added its confidence that, "in this manner, Minister Hosni will prove his good faith by responding to our call as Jews from Egypt and, simultaneously, show his commitment to the principles of UNESCO. " We understand Mr. Hosni is due to visit France mid-June and would appreciate, Mr. Director-General your efforts in resolving this matter by obtaining his formal agreement to our prompt access." concluded Sakkal A copy of the letter was sent to Minister Farouk Hosni For further information please contact Desire Sakkal to telephone 718-339-7007
Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
THE FREEMAN CENTER VERSUS AIPAC
Posted by Bernard J. Shapiro, June 5, 2008. |
|
The truth and the consequences We recently were witness to the large AIPAC Conference in Wasington D.C. All the presidential candidates plus many Israeli and Amrican political leaders spoke to the group. These included: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ehud Olmert, John McCain and Condoleezza Rice Ehud Olmert, Benjamin Netanyahu and other major political leaders. There are many Americans (especially in the State Department, CIA, academic, Muslim and left-wing communities) who believe that AIPAC is an evil force that distorts US Middle East policy to our detriment. On the other hand, there are many pro-Israel Jews and Christians, who believe that it is indispensable in the defense of Israeli interests in Washington. Tens of millions of dollars are raised annually to support this organization. The Truth is not found in these two views of AIPAC described above. Up until 1992, one could say that the second positive view of AIPAC was correct. For many years Tom Dine headed that organization and led a never ending battle supporting Israel and Zionism. The in the Israeli election of 1992, Labor leaders Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres took over Israel. Rabin became Prime Minister and Peres a Foreign Minister. Peres with his associate, extreme anti-Zionist Yossi Beilin, began negotiating with the outlawed terrorist PLO. It became necessary to emasculate AIPAC to prevent American Jewish criticism of the planed Oslo Agreements. Dine was ousted after many years of great service in a very nasty coup. AIPAC was now in the hands of pliable leaders who would follow every lead of the Israeli government, NO MATTER HOW SELF DESTRUCTIVE. And those self destructive plans came one after another in rapid succession: Oslo, Hebron, Wye, Road Map, Expulsion of Jews from Gaza, restriction on building in Judea and Samaria, persecution of religious Jews and violation of their civil and human rights and finally the elimination of the Jewish right to self defense. Education in Israel ceased being patriotic or Zionist and building a Palestinian pseudo state became the goal of the Israeli Government. AIPAC said nothing and cheered the government's mad dash to dismantle the long sought for Jewish State. THE BOTTOM LINE There are still some TRUE Zionist organizations in America. The ones that have fought the longest and the hardest for Israel are American's For A Safe Israel, Freeman Center For Strategic Studies, Zionist Organization of America and Pastor John Hagee's Christians United For Israel. These are the organizations deserving of your support. OUR PRO ISRAEL PHILOSOPHY COMPARED TO AIPAC 1. TRUE ZIONISTS: All of Eretz Yisrael belongs in perpetuity to the Jewish People AIPAC: We will negociate away any part of Eretz Israel the government believes will bring "peace" 2. ZIONISTS: Israel's right of self defense should be aggressive and not dependent of America or world opinion AIPAC: Israel's defense should be based on what America allow and world public opinion find acceptable 3. ZIONISTS: It is moral and just to expel or transfer a hostile terrorists loving population from Israel. No racial implication, only behavioral characteristics. For example: Those who want to kill us should not be our neighbors. AIPAC: It is immoral to transfer Arabs but it is Moral to transfer and expel Jews, as in Gush Katif and Yesha. 4. ZIONISTS: Gaza should be re-conquered, put under total siege, and starved until the Hamas terrorists surrender. Than means no food, water, medical supplies, electricity or fuel (which they use to fire rockets into Israel). AIPAC: Humanitarian aid should flow to Gaza and a cease-fire that, leaves Hamas in place to continue the war, should be worked out 5. ZIONISTS: In order to save IDF lives, no consideration should be made for civilian "human shield" of Hamas. Stand off artillery and aircraft bombs should soften targets before ground invasion. Civilian casualties should be NO more considered than the Allies did during WWI in Dresden and Hiroshima. AIPAC: The IDF military must act with great restraint, even if this means many more Israeli soldier's deaths. 6. ZIONISTS: No negotiations on the Golan, except demanding the Syrians return to the lines following the Israeli victory of 1973. AIPAC: Whatever the Israeli government wants to do. 7. ZIONISTS: Protect all of Israel's water resources, including the Golan, the Judean-Samarian mountain aquifer, as well as prevent the pollution of water resources by sewage spill off Gaza coast and from Arab villages. AIPAC: Support the Israeli governments plans to giveaway most of Israel's water resources to hostile enemies. And then they would want to replace this water through costly desalination schemes. 8. ZIONISTS: Would make Israel militarily independent of America and turn the relationship into a true alliance. Now it is an asymmetrical relationship, despite the fact Israel supplies the US approximately 5 times the military aid as America supplies Israel. AIPAC: Loves to boast about its getting weapons from America, but never reveals the hidden cost. Every deal adds to the diplomatic pressure on Israel foreign policy. Every deal ends up in massive sales to Arab enemy countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Every deal has some detrimental effect on Israel's local military industries. 9. ZIONISTS: Never discuss or give away any part of Jerusalem and also take over the Temple Mount from Islamic control. And of course allow regular Jewish prayer on the Mount. AIPAC: Israel should not offend Muslims by asserting Jewish rights in Jerusalem and the Temple mount. I could list many more differences between true American Zionist organizations and the pseudo Zionists at AIPAC. The above is enough for you to make a decision on who to support. Bernard J. Shapiro is Chairman and Editor of Publications of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (www.freeman.org). Articles are published in The Maccabean Online (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). This article is archived at |
|
WHAT HAPPENED TO LOGIC, JUSTICE? FUEL SHORTAGES IN GULF; AMOS IN LAND OF OZ; EXPOSING ADL
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 5, 2008. |
|
PM Olmert wants to compensate the P.A. for keeping part of Judea-Samaria. Compensate aggressors? What compensation will the Arabs give for thousands of murders? Why not denounce instead of rewarding the Palestinian Arab people for being among the world's worst? Why compensate a group for taking some land that the group wants but never held? Why should Israel compensate anybody for retaining some land that the Palestine Mandate reserved for Jewish national development, like Israel, itself? Where is the justice and logic in what Olmert is doing? POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE AWRY Candidate Clinton's remark about assassination of candidates undiplomatic but not insulting. Nevertheless, the Obama camp pounced on her for it, claiming it insulted the Kennedy's or themselves or something. Their reaction is more petty nastiness for which this campaign should be infamous. If the accused candidate doesn't swiftly apologize, the media dwell on that. Candidates and officials feel coerced into apologizing, often for nothing. More than nasty, it is an example of searching for issues to blow up and to pretend being insulted about. This is political correctness gone awry. ISRAEL SMEARED IN NEW WAY New news or old, anti-Israel Internet writers distort it against Israel or Jewry. One of those writers, El Paredon, reported P.A. figures on P.A. Arabs in Israeli prisons, many under the rules of administrative detention –– no trial. Describing them sympathetically as if the victims, he fails to acknowledge that most of even the women and youths among the prisoners are terrorists who tried murdering Israelis by war crimes. He fails to admit that many were tried and convicted, and that others were caught in the act but trials would reveal intelligence sources whom his dear P.A. would execute. They may be executed, under international law, but Israel hasn't the fortitude to do it. He does not mention that Israel applies administrative detention to some Jewish dissidents. His biggest slur is to call the prison camps Israel's "Auschwitz." It is a vicious lie to equate the Auschwitz slave-labor and death camp to Israel's prisons where the Arabs get well fed, well treated (well enough to keep at the war), and some stay after belong offered release –– they want to complete their high school education. ARAB DIABETES Saudis face a 60% lifetime chance of getting diabetes (IMRA, 5/20). Why? WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF FREEDOM OF THE PRESS In most polled countries, most people support freedom of the press and on Internet. They want more of it. Most Russians and some Arab areas, however, approve of the government censoring "de-stabilizing" journalism (IMRA, 5/21). The NY Times suggests that the US cultivate foreign journalists, who are more sympathetic towards it than thought. Those journalists don't prefer others to the US. They criticize the US mostly for not upholding civil liberties abroad, enough. On the other hand, much journalism in some foreign countries is controlled by government (5/25, Opinion section). That includes France and Israel. FUEL SHORTAGES IN THE SMALL GULF STATES The small Gulf states use much of their natural gas for exerting hydraulic pressure upon oil deposits, forcing the oil up and out. Their population expansion, however, is increasing their own demand for hydrocarbon fuel. Some of their reserves are dwindling. Now they face shortages or they burn expensive fuel that they would rather export. They are considering importing coal, which is much cheaper but harms the environment where burned (IMRA, 5/21). In other regions, oil and coal are more expensive to remove. Extraction procedures waste energy, damage the environment, and sometimes poison residents. P.A. EFFORT AGAINST CRIME Aided by cooperation from Israeli police, the P.A. police are restoring law and order to Jenin. They scrap stolen cars, have confiscated smoke guns, and gotten gunmen off the streets. They lack jails for apprehended terrorists. Have they confiscated enough guns? Where off the street are the gunmen? Is Hamas just waiting to attack? (IMRA, 5/21.) Is the change superficial or profound? What does it mean? What is the P.A. version of law and order? Has the P.A., itself, changed its attitude towards terrorism? It hasn't changed its education and propaganda in behalf of terrorism. If joint cooperation is so good, why doesn't Israel ask that it be allowed to retrieve unlicensed P.A. cars stolen from Israelis? ARABS BOYCOTTING ANOTHER COUNTRY S. Arabians are adding Holland to the list of countries they boycott. That list includes at least Denmark (IMRA, 5/21) and Israel. Israel should tell the Danes and Dutch that it sympathizes with them. AMOS IN THE LAND OF OZ Amos Oz went to Belgium for an honorary doctorate. Invited to speak about literature, he nevertheless spoke entirely about politics. He calls the Arab-Israel conflict the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Not so. (It involves the whole Arab world. Admitting it would show Israel as underdog. He alleges Israeli mistreatment of the Palestinian Arabs and he equates it with Arab terrorism. He played up to his European audience by asserting that European morality is superior to America's. The US was the evil side, he says, in the Vietnam War. (The Indochinese committed aggression and murdered millions. The allegations are false and the equating shows he has lost his ethical bearings and is simple-minded about politics. He thinks the Arab-Israel conflict is ambiguous. It is clear. The Arabs made war because they wouldn't allow Jewish sovereignty over a tiny part of the Mideast, sovereignty endorsed by the world organizations. His own moral ambiguity undermines Jewish resistance of Islamic jihad. Advocating a "two-state solution," he ignores the Arab view that isn't meant to reconcile the two sides but to pave the way to eradicate Israel. (The plan would deprive Israel of secure borders, etc.). His claim that only 30% of Palestinian Arabs accept Hamas is a lie. (It is belied by the last election and current polls, which give Hamas a majority endorsement.) He says that most Palestinian Arabs are resigned to the permanency of Israel. Not so, because they think that his touted plan leads to the end of Israel, and his touting it makes them think that Israel has lost its will to resist them. Oz ignores the failure of the two-state approach, which Israel tried. Israel gave the Arabs autonomy (with opportunity to negotiate statehood). It withdrew from Gaza. The result was terrorism and war, including bombardment of civilians. Ignore history is the lesson Oz drums in, because it keeps two parties from reconciling. Ignorance of history encourages people to accept failed policies such as Oz. Shimon Peres advocates failed policies and urges people to forget history (Prof. Steven Plaut, 5/21). "NEGATING THE NAQBA NARRATIVE" The Palestinian Arabs (and Israeli fellow-travelers) call the foundation of modern Israel their "catastrophe," and blame ensuing hardship upon Zionism. It is false propaganda. Abraham Foxman of ADL refuted it. The Arabs deny the legitimacy of putting a Jewish state there. Mr. Foxman disagrees, citing, but not explaining, various rulings and agreements. The Arabs rejected offers of statehood; they chose war. Therefore, the rebuttal goes, they incurred their own difficulties (NY Sun, 5/30, Op.-Ed.). True as far as it goes. Had Mr. Foxman included explanations of the rulings and agreements, non-students of history would not have to take his word for it. The undocumented word of a pro-Zionist does not go far. For example, he cites "the creation of Trans-Jordan," without explaining that it was carved out of the Palestine Mandate. Had he done so, it would have been clear that the Palestinian Arabs, already having a state, have a weak claim to another and especially weak coming at the expense of the Jews, whose own state is less than a third the size of Jordan. Instead, he emphasizes "legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people to have their own state." This notion of legitimacy of the western Palestinian Arabs to have a state has become politically correct, because the appeasement-minded leaders of Israel, of the US, and of leftist media constantly reiterate it without justifying their assertion. It is not justified. As just shown, such an aspiration has already been fulfilled. Why a separate state for these Arabs, who are not significantly different from the other ones in the region? Never a separate group, they share the same religion, language, and culture. Sometimes multiple nationalities share a state, but it is not fair for a group that is the same nationality as in the neighboring countries, to move into another people's homeland and then claim it needs to carve a separate state for itself out of that other people's homeland. Only relatively recently did they start calling themselves "Palestinian," an appellation they previously rejected. They arrogated the new name to themselves and pretended to have a separate history, so those families mostly of relatively recent immigrants, seem to be aboriginal. At the same time, the PLO Covenant stated that their nationality remained Arab. Their fraud is a specious warrant for sovereignty. What really is their "aspiration?" Mr. Foxman misstates it as statehood. Yet he, himself, admitted that they rejected opportunities for statehood, in order to fight Israel. They made clear when they and Arab states started wars on Israel, that the purpose was dispossession and even genocide. Islam does not tolerate an infidel state in areas it formerly had conquered, such as Israel. Has Abbas broken with that perspective, as Foxman maintains? No. Abbas' P.A. teaches its people that all of Israel belongs to them and should be taken away from the Jews. Arafat and his PLO Covenant explained their strategy of using whatever land Israel evacuates becomes a base for attacking Israel and conquering the rest. That is what happened in Gaza, when still under Abbas' rule. One can't imagine a people less deserving than the Arabs in the Territories, wholeheartedly embracing the bigotry, religious imperialism, and terrorism that their supposedly peace-loving leader devotes his society's media, schools, and mosques to incite. How does Mr. Foxman, a supposed defender of the Jewish people, find legitimate an Arab aspiration to use statehood to deprive the Jewish people of statehood? Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear regularly in 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 |
|
ISRAELI FACTORY HIT BY ROCKET FROM GAZA
Posted by HaDaR, June 5, 2008. |
|
Nothing new: the more than six thousand rockets, mortars and missiles do not impress the ruling elites very much. The missiles do not fall in the places where the ruling elite's sons and daughters live: Southern and Northern "schwartzes" are expendable. In the meantime, for the last three days and night, WITHOUT A WORD IN THE MEDIA, the street war among Arab gangs –– fought with continuous automatic Kalashnikov fire day and night –– has continued unabated in many Arab villages around Hebron. MEANTIME, SOME IDIOTS SPEAK OF PEACE WITH THESE ANIMALS. HaDaR can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net. |
|
15 GIRLS FOR A DOG TO SETTLE PAKISTAN FEUD
Posted by Marc Samberg, June 5, 2008. |
|
This comes from the Bloga blogsite
How many times has the Western World been chastised, denounced as Islamophobic and threatened by muslims for saying that the muslim religion is "soft on pedophilia"? If this taboo subject, abhorred by ALL Western nations, has no place in Islam then why are little girls –– ages between 3 –– 10 years old –– considered old enough to be bartered (for a dead dog) as marriageable = brides?? This below comes from Judith Apter Klinghoffer; it was
posted on the History News Network (HNN)
|
|
This story speaks for itself: Pakistan: –– A dog owned by one tribe, the Chakranis, was shot dead because it strayed too close to a well controlled by their rivals, the Qalandaris. In revenge the Chakranis shot a donkey belonging to the other side. A ferocious bout of tit-for-tat killings ensued in which 19 people, including five women, were killed. The fighting ended in 2002 when Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti –– a rebellious tribal chieftain who was later killed by the Pakistan army –– brought the two sides together. Bugti ordered the Chakranis to hand over 15 child brides in compensation; at a jirga, or tribal council. Last Friday they finally agreed to make good on that promise, said Marri.
"They agreed to pay some money and exchange the ladies," he said.
Contact Marc Samberg at marcsamberg@yahoo.com
|
|
ISRAELI ON ARAB TV: JERUSALEM WAS OURS WHEN MOSLEMS WORSHIPPED IDOLS
Posted by David Frankfurter, June 5, 2008. |
|
This was written by Tzvi ben Gedalyahu and it appeared today in Arutz=7. |
|
(IsraelNN.com) Bar Ilan University political scientist Dr. Mordechai Kedar told a Moslem show host on the Arabic-language Al Jazeera television network, "Jews were in Jerusalem while your ancestors were drinking wine and blowing to idols." In a heated debate with the narrator, he added, "We don't need your permission to build" in the capital of Israel, Jerusalem. The encounter occurred earlier this week, when Jews around the world celebrated Jerusalem Unification Day. Dr. Kedar has frequently appeared on the widely viewed Qatar-based network but this time encountered a sharp attack from the show's host, Jimal Rian. "Building in Jerusalem is another nail in the coffin in negotiations with the Palestinian Authority," narrator Jimal Rian asserted. Dr. Kedar answered in fluent Arabic, "This was our capital 3,000 years ago, and we were here when your forefathers were drinking wine, burying girls alive and worshipping pre-Muslim idols. This is our city and it will be our city forever." His reference to Muslims drinking wine, which is forbidden in Islam, infuriated the host. Rian wagged his finger in the air and said excitedly, "If you want to talk about history, you cannot erase Jerusalem from the Koran, and don't attack the Muslim religion if we want to continue talking." Dr. Kedar replied, "Jerusalem is not mentioned even once in the Koran. Jerusalem is a Jewish city." The Al Jazeera host responded by quoting a verse from the Koran in which he thought Jerusalem was mentioned by name, but stopped in the middle upon realizing that it only refers to "the farthest place." Dr. Kedar: "Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Koran even once. You can't rewrite the Koran on air on Al Jazeera." Rian changed the subject to "settlements" and asked Dr. Kedar why Israel is building 1,000 new apartments and deciding to build thousands more while there are rumors that "Jerusalem will include all of the West Bank [Judea and Samaria]. The Bar Ilan researcher replied. "My friend, Israel is not counting the number of apartments that Qatar is building on the Qatar Peninsula so why are you doing so in Jerusalem? Jerusalem is our city forever and is not an issue for you, for Al Jazeera or for anyone else. Period. Jerusalem belongs only to Jews. Replying to Rian's question if Dr. Behar's assessment is the basis for talks with the Palestinian Authority (PA), he declared, "My friend, I invite you to Jerusalem so you can see with your own eyes that it has become a flourishing city after it was in ruins under Arab rule until 1967. We rebuilt the city and opened it to Christians, Moslems and Jews equally, unlike under Muslim rule" that prohibited other religions. The political scientist told Al Jazeera viewers, "The West bank does not belong to any nation because it was not under a nation's jurisdiction, unlike the Sinai Peninsula." No one can say it is occupied," he argued. "From what country did we take it? Until 1967, Jordan occupied it. Therefore, we can do what we want." He explained that Al Jazeera takes a jihadic and anti-Israel stance in order to detract viewers' attention from the wealth of the oil-rich Arab kingdoms, including Qatar, where Al Jazeera is based. "The amount of poison that they disseminate about us from our home is too dangerous, and something had to be done," he recently told the Jewish Forward, referring to the Israeli government's unannounced partial boycott of the network. He labeled Al Jazeera "the mouthpiece of the Muslim Brotherhood," the radical terrorist party that is gaining popularity in Egypt. Al Jazeera television claims 100 million viewers and has Israel-based studios in Jerusalem, Gaza and Ramallah. [EDITOR'S NOTE: See it on video English Subtitles:
Hebrew Subtitles:
Arab Subtitles:
Kedar is an Israeli with a spine. Obviously he's not an Israeli politician. While there, take a look at "The History behind Palestine and Israel Conflict."
Adawillig commented on this video: Good video. There are 2 things you got wrong though. Britain and France had divided the Ottoman Empire among themselves by 1920, possibly earlier, not 1922. And there were not a million Arabs who stayed in Israel after 1948. The number was about 100-150 thousand. If they were a million they would have had a majority. Other than that this was perfect. ] David Frankfurter is a business consultant, corporate executive and writer who frequently comments on the Middle East. To subscribe to his 'Letter from Israel', email him at david.frankfurter@gmail.com. Or go to http://www.livejournal.com/users/dfrankfurter/ |
|
ABBAS' CHIEF OF STAFF RAFIQ AL HUSSEINI: "TEMPLE MOUNT '100% ISLAMIC'"
Posted by Marc Samberg, June 4, 2008. |
|
This was written by Aaron Klein and it appeared June 1, 2008
in World Net Daily
Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily's Jerusalem bureau chief, is known for his regular interviews with Mideast terror leaders and his popular segments on America's top radio programs. His newly released book is "Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal their Global Plans ? to a Jew!" |
|
Warning: 'Any action that offends holy site will be answered by 1.5 billion Muslims'
JERUSALEM –– Jerusalem and the Temple Mount belong to the Muslims and any Israeli action that "offends" the Mount will be answered by 1.5 billion Muslims, declared the chief of staff for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. "Jerusalem is Muslim. The blessed Al Aqsa mosque and Harem Al Sharif (Temple Mount) is 100 percent Muslim. The Israelis are playing with fire when they threaten Al Aqsa with digging that is taking place," said Abbas' chief of staff Rafiq Al Husseini. The Temple Mount is Judaism's holiest site. Husseini was referring to Israeli plans to construct a new bridge from the Western Wall area to the Temple Mount. The old bridge was damaged two years ago. When Israeli workers tried to repair it, Palestinian leaders claimed the work was threatening the Al Aqsa Mosque, even though the mosque is located hundreds of feet away, the work did not tunnel under any Mount foundation or touch any structure connected to the mosque, and the repair work –– which had been pre-approved by Jordan and the Mount's Muslim custodians –– was conducted under the scrutiny of an accessible 24/7 webcam. "Any hurting of Jerusalem will explode the whole negotiations between us and the Israelis ... we must work to strengthen Palestinian ties to Jerusalem," al-Husseini said. Israel has been negotiating with Abbas in line with talks started at last November's U.S.-backed Annapolis Summit, which seeks to create a Palestinian state before the end of the year. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is widely expected to offer the Palestinians most of the West Bank and eastern sections of Jerusalem. The Temple Mount is located in eastern Jerusalem. Mainstream Palestinian leaders claim the Temple Mount is Muslim in spite of overwhelming archaeological evidence documenting the first and second Jewish temples. In a WND exclusive interview last year, Taysir Tamimi, chief Palestinian Justice and one of the most influential Muslim leaders in Israel, argued the Jewish Temples never existed, the Western Wall really was a tying post for Muhammad's horse, the Al Aqsa Mosque was built by angels, and Abraham, Moses and Jesus were prophets for Islam. Tamimi is considered the second most important Palestinian cleric after Muhammad Hussein, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. "Israel started since 1967 making archeological digs to show Jewish signs to prove the relationship between Judaism and the city and they found nothing. There is no Jewish connection to Israel before the Jews invaded in the 1880s," said Tamimi. "About these so-called two Temples, they never existed, certainly not at the [Temple Mount]," Tamimi said during a sit-down interview in his eastern Jerusalem office. The Palestinian cleric denied the validity of dozens of digs verified by experts worldwide revealing Jewish artifacts from the First and Second Temples throughout Jerusalem, including on the Temple Mount itself; excavations revealing Jewish homes and a synagogue in a site in Jerusalem called the City of David; or even the recent discovery of a Second Temple Jewish city in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Tamimi said descriptions of the Jewish Temples in the Hebrew Tanach, in the Talmud and in Byzantine and Roman writings from the Temple periods were forged, and that the Torah was falsified to claim biblical patriarchs and matriarchs were Jewish when indeed they were prophets for Islam. "All this is not real. We don't believe in all your versions. Your Torah was falsified. The text as given to the Muslim prophet Moses never mentions Jerusalem. Maybe Jerusalem was mentioned in the rest of the Torah, which was falsified by the Jews," said Tamimi. He said Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Jesus were "prophets for the Israelites sent by Allah as to usher in Islam." Asked about the Western Wall, Tamimi said the structure was a tying post for Muhammad's horse and that it is part of the Al Aqsa Mosque, even though the Wall predates the mosque by over 1,000 years. "The Western wall is the western wall of the Al Aqsa Mosque. It's where Prophet Muhammad tied his animal which took him from Mecca to Jerusalem to receive the revelations of Allah." The Kotel, or Western Wall, is an outer retaining wall of the Temple Mount that survived the destruction of the Second Temple and still stands today in Jerusalem. Tamimi went on to claim to WND the Al Aqsa Mosque, which has sprung multiple leaks and has had to be repainted several times, was built by angels. "Al Aqsa was build by the angels forty years after the building of Al-Haram in Mecca. This we have no doubt is true," he said. The First Temple was built by King Solomon in the 10th century B.C. It was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. The Second Temple was rebuilt in 515 B.C. after Jerusalem was freed from Babylonian captivity. That temple was destroyed by the Roman Empire in A.D. 70. Each temple stood for a period of about four centuries. The Temple was the center of religious worship for ancient Israelites. It housed the Holy of Holies, which contained the Ark of the Covenant and was said to be the area upon which God's presence dwelt. All biblical holidays centered on worship at the Temple. The Temples served as the primary location for the offering of sacrifices and was the main gathering place for Israelites. According to the Talmud, the world was created from the foundation stone of the Temple Mount. It's believed to be the biblical Mount Moriah, the location where Abraham fulfilled God's test to see if he would be willing to sacrifice his son Isaac. The Temple Mount has remained a focal point for Jewish services for thousands of years. Prayers for a return to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple have been uttered by Jews since the Second Temple was destroyed, according to Jewish tradition. The Al Aqsa Mosque was constructed in about 709 to serve as a shrine near another shrine, the Dome of the Rock, which was built by an Islamic caliph. Al Aqsa was meant to mark what Muslims came to believe was the place at which Muhammad, the founder of Islam, ascended to heaven to receive revelations from Allah. Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Quran. It is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible 656 times. Muslims worldwide pray with their backs away from the Temple Mount and toward Mecca. Islamic tradition states Muhammad took a journey in a single night on a horse from "a sacred mosque" –– believed to be in Mecca in southern Saudi Arabia –– to "the farthest mosque" and from a rock there ascended to heaven. The farthest mosque became associated with Jerusalem about 120 years ago. According to research by Israeli Author Shmuel Berkovits, Islam historically disregarded Jerusalem. Berkovits points out in his new book, "How dreadful is this place!" that Muhammad was said to loathe Jerusalem and what it stood for. He wrote Muhammad made a point of eliminating pagan sites of worship, and sanctifying only one place –– the Kaaba in Mecca –– to signify the unity of God. As late as the 14th century, Islamic scholar Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyya, whose writings influenced the Wahhabi movement in Arabia, ruled that sacred Islamic sites are to be found only in the Arabian Peninsula, and that "in Jerusalem, there is not a place one calls sacred, and the same holds true for the tombs of Hebron." It wasn't until the late nineteenth century –– incidentally when Jews
started immigrating to Palestine –– that some Muslim scholars began
claiming Muhammad tied his horse to the Western Wall and associated
Muhammad's purported night journey with the Temple Mount.
Contact Marc Samberg at marcsamberg@yahoo.com
|
|
ROGUE STATE DEPARTMENT
Posted by Dawn Treader, June 4, 2008. |
|
Are they really rogue? Or do they represent genuine U.S. policy toward Israel? This was written by David Bedein and it appeared August 25, 2003 in
Front Page Magazine
David Bedein has run the Israel Resource News Agency. www.IsraelBehindTheNews.com, since 1987, at the Beit Agron Press Center in Jerusalem, where he also heads the Center for Near East Policy Research and serves as the Middle East correspondent for the Philadelphia Bulletin, www.thebulletin.us. |
|
The US Constitution mandates that the US Congress, the elected representatives of the American people, must advise and consent the US Administration in matters of foreign policy. The time has come for the American people to make State Department policies accountable to the the US Senate Foreign RelationsCommittee, the US House International Relations Committee, the media and the American electorate. In at least twenty critical matters of Middle East foreign policy, the US State Department has acted independently of US Congressional approval in its implementation of Middle East policy. 1. The US State Department has ignored all data brought to its attention from Israeli intelligence which provides documents, records minutes, and recordings which demonstrate Abu Mazen's direct involvement with the PLO murder campaign which has ensued over the past three years, which has resulted in more than 18,000 terror attacks and more than 800 Israeli citizens who have been murdered by Arab terrorists in cold blood. Contact Dawn Treader at dawntreader3@yahoo.com |
|
OLMERT'S DILEMMA AND ISRAEL'S MULTI-FRONT NEGOTIATIONS
Posted by Barry Rubin, June 4, 2008. |
|
Clearly, the conduct of negotiations by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government with Syria, the Palestinian Authority, and Hamas, has an Israeli political dimension. Yet it is easy to misunderstand this relationship. Olmert's unpopularity and personal involvement with strong corruption allegations give him an incentive to conduct such talks. His basic argument is: I'm engaged in such important efforts to achieve peace as to render unimportant all these other petty issues. Stop distracting me. But two other neglected points must be added. First, this message is aimed at the political left and the Israeli media most of all. By saying he's working for peace, Olmert believes –– with good reason –– that they won't criticize him. Second, though, this same gambit makes him more unpopular with the right. Additionally, Israeli public opinion is generally cynical. It isn't against negotiations and very much wants peace but is doubtful that Syria, Fatah, or Hamas are willing to make real peace. Consequently, Olmert's activist policy on talks also has negative effects on his domestic popularity and political support. In brief, then, Olmert may be influenced by political considerations but the result is not all positive, nor is his diplomatic strategy by any means responsible for his survival. Parliamentary politics are far more important in this regard. He has a majority coalition, his partners are afraid of elections, and his party colleagues know that his mismanagement would lead to their destruction in case of elections. These points –– not rushing to talks, sometimes overestimating their results, or making huge concessions –– are the main reasons why Olmert has remained in office. Here there enters an important irony. The fact is that –– for reasons which cannot be fully covered in this short article –– Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, and Syria don't want to make peace with Israel, while Fatah (and hence the Palestinian Authority, PA) is entrapped in a mixture of rejection and, to the extent that some of its leaders are more moderate, weakness which prevents it from doing so. Given this reality, Olmert and other Israeli leaders know that achieving agreements is unlikely. Consequently, they can engage in negotiations and offer concessions in the relative security that they will not have to implement deals. This is not to imply they are motivated by cynicism –– they'd prefer success –– but that's the situation in which they work. There has been a withering and heated criticism of the Olmert government from the right, sometimes crossing the border to incitement. Yet this storm has been based on the words of Olmert and the government. It is much harder to show that their actual deeds have involved extreme unilateral concessions, jeopardizing the country's security, or giving away assets for selfish political gain. The talks have remained just that, talks. And there is an important structural reason in terms of the other side's positions, interests, and needs why this has been so. An additional factor in this situation is a search to meet shorter-term goals. Even granted that negotiations will not succeed in achieving total peace and an end to the conflict, certain things might be gained which benefit both Israel and the government. In many cases, there can be a debate over specific ideas but they are not irrational ones. Most important is how this works in Israel-PA talks. There is a broad consensus in Israel that the country's interests require the survival of the PA, whose replacement by Hamas in the West Bank would create a more dangerous and violent situation. Equally, it is vital to give the PA a higher capacity to block terrorism, improve its people's well-being, and reduce the level of direct conflict. Talks, easing tensions, some concessions, and allowing the PA to get resources it needs are worthwhile even for such partial successes. And, of course, by showing its flexibility and desire for peace, Israel also improves its relations with the West. Talks with Syria have a different but parallel set of criteria. On one hand, there is the hope (which this author believes mistaken) that somehow, no matter how unlikely, this might somehow lead to peace and to the detachment of Syria from its alliance with Iran. Yet there are also more modest expectations. It is important to remember that Defense Minister Ehud Barak has long believed that advancing on the Syrian track is a way to sidestep the deadlock he perceives on the Palestinian track and gain leverage over the Palestinians. This was his policy as prime minister in 1999. Another goal is to give Syria an incentive to keep the Israel-Lebanon border quiet, reining in Hizballah to avoid destroying talks which also benefit itself (though the Syrian regime is uninterested in achieving peace with Israel). In contrast to the PA policy, however, the Syria initiative arguably undermined U.S.-Israel relations to some extent. Any talks with Hamas offer far less in all respects, which is one reason why they have lagged behind the other two tracks. Finally, the idea that the problem in negotiations is the Olmert government is too weak to make peace should be laid to rest. This is superficially appealing yet unquestionable if Olmert could show any real progress he would be much stronger politically. And if he fell his successors would probably pursue roughly similar policies –– definitely so on the PA track. Olmert's problems stem not from his negotiations policies, while his negotiations' policies stem only partly from his political problems. A slightly different version of this article appeared in Bitter Lemons, Reprinted with permission. 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 |
|
DOR ALON COMPANY THREATENED WITH LEGAL ACTION FOR CONTINUING FUEL DELIVERIES TO GAZA STRIP
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 4, 2008. |
|
Contact Nitsana Darshan-Leitner at 011.972.52.383.7020
Attorneys Robert Tolchin of New York City and Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of the Israel-based human rights organization "Shurat HaDin-Israel Law Center" (www.israellawcenter.org) have dispatched a stern warning letter to the Israeli energy company Dor Alon Energy demanding that it immediately stop supplying fuel to Hamas in the Gaza Strip or face both criminal and civil actions in United States. The letter was sent by the attorneys on behalf of victims of recent Hamas "qassam" missile attacks in Southern Israel. Supplying fuel to the Hamas controlled Gaza Strip, it is alleged, is a direct violation of American law which prohibits aiding, abetting and providing material support to terrorist organizations. In addition, to criminal prosecution, the attorneys have warned that Dor Alon would be facing civil actions in American courts that could potentially award the American and Israeli victims of the Hamas missile attacks millions of dollars in compensation Dor Alon is the exclusive supplier of fuel to the Gaza Strip. Senior Israeli military officials have confirmed that the Hamas terrorist organization seizes over 50% of all the fuel supplied by Dor Alon immediately upon arrival to the Gaza side of the fuel depot. The fuel is then utilized by Hamas for terrorist activities –– namely manufacturing, transportation and launching missiles at Israeli civilian communities and transporting terrorists to and from launch sites and other areas. Hamas is classified as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States and the European Union. Despite being on notice that its fuel is being appropriated by Hamas for terrorist activities, Dor Alon continues to deliver 800,000 liters of gas each week to Gaza. Dor Alon Energy's sister company, Alon U.S.A., which trades on the NYSE under the ticker ALJ, operates sour and heavy crude oil refineries in Texas, California and Oregon. Alon USA also markets fuel products in south, central, southwestern and western United States through a network of some 1,100 locations under the FINA brand name. These include 308 Seven-Eleven brand convenience stores located in Texas and New Mexico. "Dor Alon Energy has continually chosen to place its own financial welfare above the security concerns of the residents of Sderot and the Western Negev who have to suffer daily attacks launched upon them from Gaza using the fuel supplied by the company," explained Attorney Darshan-Leitner. "Dor Alon knows that supplying fuel to Hamas is an offense under the Israeli and American law and that the fuel it supplies serves the Hamas terrorist infrastructure –– yet still chooses to ignore the ramifications of its actions. Our clients, the victims of this on-going travesty, demand that Dor Alon Energy immediately cease the supply of fuel to Hamas in Gaza before more innocent people are hurt." Contact: Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, 011.972.52.383.7020
|
|
LAW OFFICE OF June 4, 2008
Dor Alon Energy in Israel, Ltd.
Dear Ms. Klein,
Along with Israeli attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of the Shurat HaDin ––
Israel Law Center, we represent the families of victims of the recent Hamas
terrorist organization's missile attacks on Sderot, Ashqelon and other Negev
towns and kibbutzim that border the Gaza Strip. Many of our clients'
families have been murdered in the Hamas missile attacks while others have
been seriously wounded. A list of our clients and the nature of their
injuries can be provided upon your request.
As you are well aware, Dor Alon Energy in Israel, Ltd. ("Dor Alon") is the
major supplier of fuel to the Gaza Strip. Recent news reports indicate that
the Hamas terrorist organization is appropriating the fuel deliveries
supplied by your corporation and using it for terrorist attacks and to
support their criminal infrastructure.
For example, on April 11, 2008 the Haaretz newspaper reported that "Hamas
uses. fuel for militant purposes," and according to Nir Press, the commander
of the military liaison unit for the Gaza Strip, Hamas seizes over half of
all the fuel transferred to the Gaza Strip.
Consequently, as Dor Alon continues to supply fuel to the Gaza Strip when
it is on notice that this fuel is being appropriated by Hamas for terrorist
purposes, Dor Alon is knowingly aiding and abetting a terrorist organization
and recklessly endangering the lives of countless Israelis and foreign
citizens. Dor Alon has knowingly and intentionally provided this material
support and resources to the Hamas organization, which has facilitated and
caused the terrorist attacks in which our clients' family members were
murdered and/or in which they were harmed.
Dor Alon has continued to provide its regular fuel deliveries to the Gaza
Strip despite the fact that Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization
under Israeli, American and European law and that the provision of such
services to a designated terrorist organization is a criminal act. In the
United States providing material support to the Hamas organization is a
federal offense.
Moreover, the American Anti-Terrorism Act, and specifically 18 U.S.C. §
2333(a), grants American victims of international terrorism the right to
bring suit against anyone who has knowingly assisted a terrorist
organization by supplying material support to such a group. In addition,
non-American Israeli victims of the missile attacks would be able to bring
suit against Dor Alon in the United States under the Alien Tort Statute (28
U.S.C. § 1350) ("ATS"). Thus, by directly or indirectly supplying the Hamas
terrorists with a critical component of its terrorist infrastructure, you
are actively aiding its terrorist activities and are placing Dor Alon at
risk of becoming defendants in a civil action brought by Hamas victims in
the United States.
In light of the numerous precedents establishing the large damages awarded
to victims of terrorism under the ATA and ATS, it is clear that Dor Alon's
damages liability in this case will be several hundred million dollars, or
more. See e.g. Knox v. Palestine Liberation Organization, 442 F.Supp.2d 62
(S.D.N.Y. 2006) (ATA judgment for $192 million for terrorist murder); Doe v.
Karadzic, 176 F.R.D. 458, 460 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), 2001 WL 986545 (S.D.N.Y.
2001) (ATS judgment for approximately $4.5 billion in favor of twenty-two
plaintiffs); Mehinovic v. Vuckovic, 198 F. Supp.2d 1322 (N.D.Ga. 2002) (ATS
judgment for $140 million entered in favor of four victims).
Accordingly, we are now requesting that Dor Alon immediately cease and
desist from providing any further fuel deliveries to the Gaza Strip while it
remains under the control of the Hamas terrorist organization.
If instead your corporation continues to knowingly and intentionally provide material
support and resources to the Hamas organization, which facilitated and
caused the terrorist attacks in which our clients' family members were
murdered and/or in which they were harmed, we are prepared to bring suit
against you in a United States federal court under the relevant
antiterrorism statutes as set out above.
We would appreciate receiving your confirmation that Dor Alon has decided to
cease all its fuel deliveries to the Gaza Strip
Very truly yours,
Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
REVISITING RESOLUTION 242
Posted by Ted Belman, June 4, 2008. |
|
Five months after the Six Day War in '67, The Security Council passed the much referred to Resolution 242. Here are the relevant parts. The Security Council, Now Article 2 of the Charter provides inter alia. The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles. Obviously Iran is in default of its obligations under "4" and nobody even mentions it. Similarly the PA and Hamas violate the same clause but they are not members. As provided in "2" all members are to follow these principles in order to be afforded heir benefits. But since the Charter provides no benefits from non-members, it is safe to say the obligations need not be complied with insofar as they are concerned. Their liberal use of terror and incitement and their daily war crimes in rocketing civilians gets nary a mention in the UN though its Charter requires all disputes to be settled by "peaceful means". Now let us return to the resolution. Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security, Nowhere in the Charter is this specifically stated no doubt because it is not the law. It is interpolated from the requirement to refrain from "threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." Certainly, if you are an aggressor state and violate this obligation, you should not be allowed to benefit from your violation. But if you succeed as an aggressor who is there to deny you the spoils of your victory. On the other hand, nothing in the Charter restricts a member's right to self defense nor does it restrict their rights to keep territory conquered as a result thereof. Article 51 provides "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations," The problem with this provision is that it conditioned an "an armed attack". International law recognizes that there are many acts of war short of an armed attack which would permit you to defend yourself such as neighbours massing their troops on Israel's border prior to Israel's response. Secondly the act of self defense doesn't imply deploying only defensive measures but fully allows for offense as self-defense. But the question of proportionality comes in. How much offense is permitted. Surely international law doesn't criminalize seeking victory or the total defeat of your mortal enemies. Leaving this aside, the operative provisions of 242 require Israel to withdraw "to secure and recognized borders". Eugene V. Rostow (Distinguished Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace, and former US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs), states: * Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved. So don't let anyone tell you that the occupation is illegal or that Israel must with draw from all the territories subject to mutually agreed exchanges. Please note that "a just settlement of the refugee problem" is required and this isn't limited to Arab refugees. Furthermore there is no mention of General Assembly Resolution 194 which resolved "that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;" First of all this resolution is only a recommendation and cannot create legal rights. Secondly the Security Council could have included it in 242 had they wanted to but only provided for a "just settlement of the refugee problem" which also includes the Jewish refugees. It obviously chose not to. Finally, the resolution is silent on Jerusalem, no doubt because of the euphoria which engulfed Israel after its capture and the lack of interest shown by Jordan to Jerusalem during its occupation of same. Based on this resolution, Israel is entitled to keep Jerusalem, to demand what it wants in terms of secure borders and to deny any "right of return". Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com |
|
REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE ASSISTANCE
Posted by Hebron Jewish Community, June 4, 2008. |
|
My name is Tehila Shimoni. I'm 27 years old, the wife of Yosef Chaim Shimoni 28 years old, and mother of Itai, two and a half years old. I would like to tell you about my young family. My husband and I both were born in Kiryat Arba. He went to the army, to a special unit, "Egoz" –– that fights terrorists in Judea and Samaria and against" Hizballah" in Lebanon. When we married 5 years ago we chose to live in "Giva't Harel"-in the Binyamin Settlements. This settlement is named after our loved brother in law, Harel Ben Noon, who was murdered by an Arab terrorist on the same hills. My husband Yosef works in a company that ensures that the Arabs will not take over more lands in our holy land. A few weeks ago Yosef wasn't feeling well. We went from doctor to doctor and then from one hospital to another, and they told us that it's just an infection. On Israel's Independence Day he was accepted for emergency surgery and unfortunately diagnosed with a very violent cancer that spread in his stomach. After counseling with doctors, we were told that the treatments in Israel are limited. My husband and I were raised on the laps of our ancestors: Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivka, and Ya'akov and Leah, all of whom refused to give up hope. After searching all over the world we found a clinic in Germany that treats successfully such cases They combine chemotherapy treatment with other unique treatments. We sent a family member to Germany to examine those clinics and we understand that we have to be quick and arrive as soon as possible in order to improve our chances of success. The estimates of the expenses are 150,000 Euro (almost $250,000) which we don't have, even after opening all our savings. My uncle, Ofer Ochana, who some of you many know from the Gutnick Center Restaurant in Hebron, suggested that I write and tell you my story. Therefore I ask any of you that can help me save my husband's and the father of my children's (I'm two months pregnant) life! As it is written "whoever saves one life, it is as if he saved an entire world." Funds can be donated via the Hebron Fund in NYC, at 1760 Ocean Ave. Brooklyn, NY 11230 or via internet at www.hebrontruma.com. Please note on the check or web donation that the funds are for the Yossi Shimoni Fund. In Israel checks can be deposited in Bank HaPoalim, Branch 695, Account number 595954. Please fax the deposit slip to 02-9944521. More information can be received from Efrat at 050-628-5603 or Moshe at 054-486-1274. Also, your prayers are very much needed for: Yosef Chaim ben Mazal Tov. Thank you very much. Tehila Shimoni
Contact the Hebron Jewish Community at hebron@hebron.org.il
|
|
WHO DOES THIS LAND BELONG TO?
Posted by Daisy Stern, June 4, 2008. |
Ruth and Nadia Matar of Women in Green sent this:
This is a MUST READ!! Rabbi David Algaze's speech at Central Park, Sunday June 1, 2008 |
|
I HAVE COME TO ASK A QUESTION, A SIMPLE QUESTION, ONE THAT HAS BEEN FORGOTTEN IN ALL THE TALK ABOUT PEACE IN ISRAEL. WHO DOES THIS LAND BELONG TO? WE HAVE AN ANSWER AND IT IS THE ONLY ANSWER. LET US SAY IT OUT LOUD,
LET THE WHOLE WORLD HEAR IT. LET NO ONE, NOT EVEN US, HAVE ANY DOUBT
ABOUT IT:
THIS IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH WE ARE BEING ASKED TO FORGET AND IGNORE. BUT WE WILL NOT FORGET IT, WE WON'T BETRAY OUR LAND. WE SAY TODAY AND EVERY DAY: "IF I FORGET THEE JERUSALEM LET MY RIGHT HAND BE PARALYZEDS." THERE IS A REASON WHY THIS LAND IS CALLED THE PROMISED LAND. AND DO
YOU KNOW WHY? BECAUSE IT IS PROMISED TO OUR FATHERS AND IT IS
PROMISED TO OUR CHILDREN.
HOW CAN WE GIVE IT AWAY? WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO GIVE IT AWAY.
G-D SAID TO OUR FATHER ABRAHAM OVER AND OVER AGAIN: THIS IS YOUR LAND; I HAVE GIVEN IT TO YOU. HOW CAN WE FORGET THIS? IT IS REPORTED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMAN, THE FIRST U.S. PRESIDENT TO RECOGNIZE AND SUPPORT THE STATE OF ISRAEL, OFTEN CITED THE VERSE IN DEUTERONOMY (1:8) "BEHOLD, I HAVE GIVEN THE LAND BEFORE YOU, GO IN AND TAKE POSSESSION OF THE LAND WHICH THE LORD HAS SWORN UNTO YOUR FATHERS THROUGH ABRAHAM, THROUGH ISAAC AND THROUGH JACOB." TRUMAN REMEMBERED, MANY CHRISTIAN PREACHERS REMEMBER, DARE WE BE THE ONES TO FORGET? WE CREATED THE WORLD COMMITTEE FOR THE LAND OF ISRAEL JUST TO SPREAD
THAT SIMPLE TRUTH THAT THE LAND OF ISRAEL BELONGS TO THE JEWISH
PEOPLE AND WE WILL NOT PART WITH IT. THIS IS OUR LAND AND WE WILL NOT
BARTER IT AWAY. PERIOD.
THE REBIRTH OF ISRAEL IN ITS LAND IS AN EVENT HARD TO UNDERSTAND. THE WORLD HAS NEVER SEEN SOMETHING LIKE IT. THE STORY OF OUR RETURN IS WITHOUT PARALLEL. JEWS NEVER LEFT ISRAEL VOLUNTARILY AND THEY RETURNED WHEN THEY COULD. WE NEVER ABANDONED THE LAND ENTIRELY EITHER, THERE WERE JEWS THROUGHOUT HISTORY IN THE LAND. IT IS A MIRACLE AND AS WITH ALL MIRACLES WE NEED TO BELIEVE IT TO SEE IT. LET US BE CLEAR: THE JEWS HAVE RETURNED TO OUR LAND. WE DID NOT COME AS CONQUERORS. WE DISPLACED NO ONE. THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD MANDATED THE RETURN. ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE SINCE MANY TIMES RESCINDED AND DIMINISHED THEIR ASSURANCE, THE RETURN HAS BEEN LEGAL AND MORAL. THE LAND WAS A DESERT BEFORE THE JEWS RETURNED. CHURCHILL ONCE REMARKED THAT THE LAND BELONGED TO THE JEWS BECAUSE THE ARABS DESTROYED THE LAND, WHEREAS JEWS CREATE THE LAND. THIS IS A LOVE STORY BETWEEN A PEOPLE AND ITS LAND LIKE NO OTHER. NO OTHER NATION EVER CREATED A STATE IN THE LAND, AND THE JEWS NEVER CREATED A NATIONAL HOMELAND OUTSIDE OF IT. THE LAND ONCE FLOWING WITH MILK AND HONEY, WHEN THE JEWS PARTED, REFUSED TO GIVE ITS FRUITS. THE BEAUTIFUL LAND BECAME A WASTELAND. WAITING FOR HER CHILDREN. WE ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE LAND AND THE LAND SMILED UPON US WHEN WE RETURNED. WOULD ANYONE DESERT HIS OR HER MOTHER? CAN WE THINK OF LEAVING THE LAND VOLUNTARILY IN THE HANDS OF STRANGERS? THIS IS OUR LAND, AND WE WILL NOT BETRAY HER. THE STORY OF GUSH KATIF PROVES THIS. THE LAND THE ARABS CALLED "ACCURSED," AS SOON AS THE JEWS CAME, BEGAN TO YIELD THE MOST BEAUTIFUL FRUITS, FLOWERS AND PLANTS. THE TINY PORTION OF LAND IN GAZA YIELDED AT ONE TIME MOST OF THE AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS OF ISRAEL. YET, WHEN THE JEWS LEFT, THE LAND BECAME USELESS AGAIN. EVEN THE INSECTS PARTICIPATED. THE VEGETABLES THAT HAD BEEN ONCE FAMOUSLY BUG-FREE, BEGAN TO DEVELOP BUGS. THE THRIVING BUSINESSES OF GUSH KATIF LANGUISHED IN THE HANDS OF THE ARABS. EVEN THE SAME MANAGERS, WHO HAD WORKED UNDER THE JEWS AND HAD ALL THE EXPERTISE TO MAKE IT GO, COULD NOT DO IT. WHY? THE LAND DID NOT COOPERATE. THE LAND WAS LOYAL TO THE JEWS, ARE WE GOING TO BE FAITHFUL TO THE LAND?
THERE IS A NEW CAMPAIGN IN THE JEWISH PEOPLE, A DANGEROUS AND INEXPLICABLE DEMENTIA. IT IS CALLED "LAND FOR PEACE" IT WAS TRIED IN OSLO, IT WAS TRIED IN WYE, IT WAS TRIED IN TABA, AND NOTHING WORKED. THINGS ARE GETTING WORSE. WHEN TIME AFTER TIME A PROBLEM IS NOT RESOLVED, IS IT NOT REASONABLE TO SUSPECT THAT IT MAY BE IRRESOLVABLE? AT LEAST IN THE MANNER IT IS PLANNED? YET THERE IS A CAMPAIGN AFOOT INVOLVING ALL MAJOR JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS TO GIVE THE LAND AWAY. WHEN WE GIVE AWAY JUDEA AND SAMARIA, WE ARE GIVING AWAY THE CORE OF OUR LAND, THE HOLY PLACES WHERE OUR HISTORY EVOLVED. WE ARE GIVING UP ONLY JUDEA? WHAT WOULD JEWS BE CALLED IF WE GIVE UP JUDEA? AND THOSE INTRUDERS WHO WILL OCCUPY JUDEA, WOULD THEY NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE CALLED JUDEANS AS WELL? WHEN WE GIVE UP THE LAND, WE GIVE UP OUR HISTORY, WE GIVE OUR
IDENTITY AND WE GIVE UP OUR SOUL.
WE HAVE COME TO STOP THIS MADNESS. TO SAY TO THEM: WE ARE TIRED OF EXPULSIONS, WE ARE TIRED OF POGROMS, AND WE ARE TIRED OF SUICIDE BOMBERS AND INDISCRIMINATE MURDER IN THE STREETS. WE ARE NOT GOING TO SPEAK OF THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS; WE ARE GOING TO SPEAK OF OUR LEGITIMATE AND INALIENABLE RIGHTS. WE WILL NOT ENDANGER OUR PEOPLE WITH FOOLISH DREAMS THAT HAVE BEEN TRIED AND DISCREDITED OVER AND OVER AGAIN. THERE IS A SPIRIT OF FEEBLENESS AMONG US. OUR LEADERS HAVE LOST THE WAY. THEY KNOW THAT THERE IS NO HOPE FOR A PEACEFUL ARAB STATE IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL. NEVERTHELESS THEY INSIST BECAUSE THEY HAVE FORGOTTEN THE ESSENTIAL: THIS LAND BELONGS TO US. THEY FAILED AND YET THEY KEEP TRYING WITHOUT REMORSE AND WITHOUT SHAME. TO THEM WE TELL THEM: ENOUGH. ENOUGH OSLOS, ENOUGH WYES, ENOUGH LIFTING OF ROADBLOCKS, ENOUGH RISKING THE LIVES OF OUR INNOCENT PEOPLE, ENOUGH OF SDEROT, ENOUGH! IN OUR LONG HISTORY, WE WITNESSED THE DESTRUCTION OF JEWISH
COMMUNITIES BEFORE. BUT THIS TIME IS WORSE, MUCH WORSE. THIS TIME WE
WANT TO HELP THE DESTRUCTION ALONG.
AFTER HITLER, WE VOWED "NEVER AGAIN" BUT TODAY OUR LEADERS, OUR RABBIS, OUR MAJOR JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS ARE ALLOWING WITH THEIR ACTIONS AND THEIR SILENCE, THAT WE HEAR "EVER AGAIN." WE NEED TO RISE AND TELL THEM "NO!" THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT IN ISRAEL WITH THE AID OF WEAK-MINDED JEWISH LEADERS IN THE DIASPORA HAS EMBARKED UPON A PROGRAM THAT MAY SIGNAL THE DESTRUCTION OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL. WITH A BLEND OF HASTE AND SUBMISSIVENESS, WITH DECEIT AND SELF-DECEPTION, THE PRESENT LEADERSHIP OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE HAS SUCCEEDED WHERE ITS MOST BITTER FOES HAVE FAILED. THEY ARE ENDANGERING THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE ZIONIST ENTERPRISE THAT WERE ATTAINED WITH A SACRIFICE AND DEDICATION UNPARALLELED IN HISTORY. OUR LEADERS ARE PLAGUED WITH AN IRRESPONSIBLE SHORTSIGHTEDNESS AND ARE RUSHING HEADLONG INTO ACCORDS WITH PARTNERS THEY KNOW ARE DECEITFUL. WE PROTEST. THE WORLD COMMITTEE FOR THE LAND OF ISRAEL HAS COME TO OBJECT AND REFUSE THESE PLANS OF THE DEMENTED AND THE PATHETIC. WE NEED TO REPUDIATE ANY PLAN THAT INVOLVES BETRAYING OUR LAND. WE MUST OPPOSE ANY PROGRAM THAT PUTS OUR POPULATION WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE KASSAM. WE HAVE TO STAND AGAINST ANY SUGGESTION THAT PLACES OUR CHILDREN AT RISK. WE DID NOT RETURN TO ISRAEL TO RELIVE THE TRAGEDY OF POLAND AND GERMANY. IF OUR LEADERS ARE TIRED, LET THEM STEP ASIDE. IF THEY FEEL EXHAUSTED AND DRAINED, LET THEM MAKE ROOM FOR A NEW GENERATION THAT REMEMBERS THE DREAM OF ABRAHAM AND HAS THE COURAGE TO FIGHT IN OUR DEFENSE. THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT WE DO NOT WANT PEACE. WE SHOULD BE ZEALOUS IN THE PURSUIT OF PEACE, BUT WE SHOULD BE NO LESS FIERCE IN THE DEFENSE OF OUR LAND. WE EXTEND OUR HAND IN PEACE TOWARDS ALL OUR NEIGHBORS. OUR HANDS CONTAIN NEITHER RANCOR, NOR HATRED NOR WAR. BUT THEY ALSO CONTAIN NO LAND. WE OFFER PEACE, A REAL GENUINE PEACE. NEVERTHELESS, OUR PEACE IS NOT THE PEACE OF BEGGARS. IT DOES NOT GIVE AWAY OUR CHERISHED LAND. WHAT OTHER NATION IN THE WORLD GIVES AWAY ITS LAND? WE WILL NOT GIVE AWAY OUR LAND NO MATTER WHO COUNSELS IT OR WHO PROFITS FROM THIS BETRAYAL! OUR FIRST FATHER ABRAHAM HAD TO UNDERGO TEN TRIALS. THE LAST OF WHICH WAS TO BURY HIS DEAR WIFE SARA. THE TRIAL WAS THAT ALTHOUGH G-D HAD PROMISED HIM THE ENTIRE LAND OF ISRAEL, HE DID NOT HAVE EVEN A PLACE IN WHICH TO BURY SARAH. YET, HE, THE OWNER OF THE ENTIRE LAND, DID NOT COMPLAIN. HE HAD NO LAND NOW BUT HE STILL KEPT THE HOPE. IT IS IRONIC THAT OUR FATHER ABRAHAM, WHEN HE DID NOT HAVE THE LAND, KEPT THE HOPE AND WE WHO POSSESS THE LAND ARE THINKING OF GIVING IT AWAY. THE WORLD COMMITTEE FOR THE LAND OF ISRAEL CALLS UPON THE JEWS OF THE WORLD TO RALLY AROUND OUR BEAUTIFUL MOTHER, THE LAND OF ISRAEL. WHEN ESTABLISHED JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS ARE PATHETICALLY ACCEPTING AND EVEN CALLING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ARAB STATE IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL –– IT IS TIME FOR US TO SAY NO! IF THEY HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED OR WORSE, WE WILL NOT ALLOW TO BEING BRAINWASHED. THE GIVING AWAY OF LAND TO CREATE ANOTHER ARAB STATE, THIS ONE IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL IS WRONG. IT WAS WRONG WHEN THE ARABS WANTED IT, IT WAS WRONG WHEN JESSE JACKSON SUGGESTED IT, IT WAS WRONG WHEN OUR ENEMIES SUGGEST IT AND IT IS STILL WRONG! HASHEM OZ LE'AMO YITEN, HASHEM YEVARECH ET AMO BASHALOM! G-D SHOULD GRANT US THE STRENGTH TO STAND UP TO OUR ENEMIES. IF WE DO, THEN WE WILL MERIT THAT HE BLESSES US WITH LASTING PEACE. I CALL UPON ALL JEWS AND GOOD PEOPLE EVERYWHERE TO RALLY AROUND ERETZ ISRAEL, THE LAND OF OUR FOREFATHERS AND OUR GRANDCHILDREN. DO NOT LEAVE HER, DO NOT BETRAY HER. THIS LAND CAN BECOME THE RALLYING POINT FOR ALL JEWS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE. LET US ALL BE BROTHERS AND SISTERS AND IN THE DEFENSE OF OUR LAND, WE WILL BECOME ONE NATION AGAIN. WHEN ALL JEWS ARE UNITED, NO FORCE ON EARTH WILL EVER CONQUER US. LET US UNITE, BROTHERS AND SISTERS, AND LET US HAVE THE HOPE OF ABRAHAM THAT THIS LAND IS OUR LAND NOW AND FOREVER. Contact Daisy Stern by email at daisystern1@gmail.com |
|
OLMERT –– NOTHING TO LOSE
Posted by Steven Plaut, June 4, 2008. |
|
A Persian journalists figures out what Israel.s leftist media
cannot:
This is was written by Amir Taheri and it appeared in the New York
Post and was reprinted in Front Page Magazine
|
|
If history were to choose a sobriquet for Ehud Olmert, what would it be? The accidental prime minister! Two years ago, Olmert moved into the prime ministerial chair because his boss and mentor, Ariel Sharon, had suffered a stroke. This week or the week after, Olmert will be gone because most Israelis have had enough of his troubles with justice over a range of accusations, including bribery and money laundering. Olmert may or may not be guilty of the charges, though they have won him the unofficial title of "Israel's Most Corrupt Politician," and that is really saying something. Theoretically, Olmert should have been one of the best prepared of all those who acceded to Israel's premiership. He had an impressive CV, as Mayor of Jerusalem, holder of several Cabinet posts, and close aide to Yitzhak Shamir and Sharon. And yet, after two years as prime minister, Olmert gives the impression that he doesn't have a clue what the post is about. Even his admirers cannot cite a single significant contribution that he might have made on any major issue of domestic or foreign policy. There are several reasons for Olmert's "do-nothing" style, not all of them due to his shortcomings. Israel's peculiar political system, designed to fragment power, obliges any prime minister to spend at least half of his time holding an uneasy coalition together. Another 20 percent of the time is wasted on keeping an eye on friends who are always ready to stab you in the back. Even then, Olmert could have done better. He didn't, because he lacks the stuff. As a lawyer, he is so used to either-oring issues that he ends up confused and unable to pick an option. Olmert is practitioner of what one might call the politics of appearance. He is more concerned about how things look rather than how they are. The latest example is his recent, almost childish, eagerness to open a dialogue with the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Olmert knows that Assad, at war against his own people in Syria, cannot offer Israel peace. And, yet, he agrees to dance with the Syrian only to avoid criticism from the " Realpolitik" cabal at home and abroad. Olmert knows that Khomeinism, having seized control of Iran's immense resources, and acquired tentacles in Lebanon and Gaza, is the principal medium-term existential threat to Israel. And yet he has been pushing that dossier toward the Americans, who have been pushing it back toward him. Olmert's half-heartedness was demonstrated with catastrophic results during the summer war against Iran's Hezbollah proxies in Lebanon two years ago. Having assembled a massive force, Olmert didn't know what to do with it. In that conflict, Hezbollah suffered huge losses, enough to constitute total defeat in a conventional war. However, Olmert's decision to wave a big stick but settle for pinpricks enabled Tehran and its proxies to claim victory. Almost all Israeli prime ministers are known for ideas about ways of settling the Palestinian issue. Remember the Begin Plan, the Allon Plan, the Sharon Plan? There has never been an Olmert Plan. Even when others have come up with ideas, such as the Arab League's proposal of 2006 or the revised version of President George W Bush's "roadmap" as presented at Anapolis last November, Olmert has failed to mobilize the degree of Israeli commitment and engagement that might have produced some concrete results. Instead, he has danced around the issues, asking for "clarifications," and sending conflicting signals in all directions. Because the Israeli system puts the prime minister at the center of the nation's political life, it does matter whether the man, or woman, in charge is dynamic or lethargic. Olmertism, to coin a phrase, means going through the motions of acting as prime minister but doing as little as you could get away with. In a conversation we had in his office in Tel Aviv last year, Shimon Peres, now President of Israel, argued that, in this era of globalization, governments were becoming irrelevant. "The future is shaped by entrepreneurs with fresh ideas, especially the younger ones," he said. "The most that an intelligent government could do is to let them do it." In that sense, Olmert has been the ideal prime minister. He has buried Israel's old socialist ghosts and their claim to plan the economy and distribute its fruits. He has completed the dismantling of cumbersome structures designed in the 19th century. The trouble is that, beyond economics, Israel faces problems like no other nation-state in the world. It is the only nation publicly threatened with annihilation by several powers, notably the Islamic Republic in Iran. Olmertism cannot cope with such challenges and threats. It is a passive, and, ultimately, self-serving style of politics in a country that would always need a strong dose of dynamism and idealism simply to survive. 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. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. Or write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il |
|
FROM ISRAEL: UH OH
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 4, 2008. |
|
What many American-Israelis here have been worried about has come to pass: Barack Obama has captured the nomination. Here I will simply say that we are praying mightily –– for the good of the US and Israel –– that McCain will win. (Obama's stunning speech at AIPAC not withstanding.) In the course of the campaign I will share observations from this part of the world on issues of consequence that relate to the presidential contest. ~~~~~~~~~~ To my readers: Please know that a host of responsibilities requires me, at least in the short term, to post less frequently than has been my habit. Other work I am doing (I am beginning research on a major report, for example) competes with these postings for my time and attention and a balance is necessary. I will do my best to do these postings as is possible for me. In the course of June, I will be away from my computer for a considerable amount of time. ~~~~~~~~~~ As many are aware, Olmert is in the US primarily with regard to the issue of Iran. He has addressed the AIPAC policy conference and has met with President Bush. Also on the agenda, reportedly, is a request for cutting edge military equipment. ~~~~~~~~~~ At the same time, members of the Israeli National Fraud Unit are also in the States. They are seeking documentation of Talansky's testimony –– regarding funds drawn from his banks at the time he says he gave money to Olmert, and the identity of the other people that Talansky spoke of in his testimony as having also provided cash to Olmert. ~~~~~~~~~~ At present Talansky is due to return here for cross examination by Olmert's lawyers in July, but there is talk about bringing him back sooner. The lawyers are said to be caught between legal considerations, which require them to take their time reviewing all the evidence, and political considerations, which make it prudent for them to take the offensive as quickly as possible to dispel the current public impression. ~~~~~~~~~~ The government has announced construction of over 800 new housing units in the Jerusalem neighborhoods of Pisgat Ze'ev and Har Home, both over the Green Line. Olmert was singularly unfazed by protests registered by the PA and Condoleezza Rice. (This building "exacerbates tensions" and "obstructs the peace process.") When his eye is on sustaining his coalition, he is able to stand strong. Would that he similarly stood strong for Israel's sake. ~~~~~~~~~~ PA chief negotiator, Ahmed Qurei, has told a Fatah activists group in Ramallah that it would take a "miracle" to reach an agreement with Israel before the end of the year. He says no progress has been made. And –– surprise! –– Abbas has done a turn around and is now calling for a dialogue with Hamas even though they have not relinquished Gaza. Explained an Abbas aide: "The failure of the peace process, the tragic situation in Gaza, the entire Palestinian situation required thinking courageously of an exit. We hope that Hamas will respond positively to the call." And indeed, in Gaza, Hamas spokesman Taher Nunu said, "We welcome this call...to launch a national dialogue, and we consider it a positive step," ~~~~~~~~~~ An article this week in Germany's Der Spiegel outlines a plan being advanced by Germany, which is serving as go-between in communication between Israel and Hezbollah. It makes clear what has long been suggested: What Hezbollah would return are the bodies of Regev and Goldwasser; it would also provide detailed information on Israeli jet navigator Ron Arad, shot down over Lebanon in 1986 and presumed dead. In return, according to this German plan, Israel would release four Hezbollah militiamen and 10 bodies. And in addition, Samir Kuntar, about whom I wrote the other day: He killed a man in front of his daughter and then smashed the child's skull in. He should never, ever see the light of day again; for such a person only the death penalty (which Israel does not administer) would be fitting. His release would not sit well with many here. Nasrallah is additionally seeking release of several Palestinians. Some deal. ~~~~~~~~~~ Israel is currently negotiating an upgrade in our relationship with the EU –– to senior European partner –– that would give us increased access to European markets worth billions to us, and foster cooperation in science and diplomacy. Bad enough that PA prime minister Fayyad sent a letter to the Organization for Economic Development asking that Israel's participation in Europe's markets be blocked –– Olmert was said to be livid about this. Far worse, however, is that Israel has now learned that Egypt has been attempting (without success) to do the same. What seems to be going on is that Egypt believes Israel complaints about Egypt's failure to block smuggling of weapons into Gaza was a factor in a US freeze on $200 million in military aid Egypt –– and now they are retaliating. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
POLITICALLY CORRECT ANTI-SEMITISM
Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, June 4, 2008. |
|
This comes from Gerardo Joffe, President of FLAME –– Facts and Logic About the Middle East. Contact them at P.O. Box 590359 San Francisco, CA 94159 |
|
Who are its advocates? What are its goals? The Holocaust, in which over six million Jews were brutally murdered by the Nazis and their enthusiastic collaborators, happened over 60 years ago. So horrific were the events that –– even today, about two generations later –– nobody would wish to identify himself with them. Yet, a new anti-Semitism is now rearing its head. It is important to be aware of it. What are the facts? Who are the new anti-Semites? The new anti-Semites do not publicly proclaim their desire to bring about a second Holocaust or to subject the Jews to mass murder or annihilation. The hatred is aimed against the state of Israel, which, according to the new anti-Semites, represents all that is evil in the world and which is the main violator of human rights and guilty of virtually every other abuse that can be conceived. This poison is now so widespread that a poll taken in Europe not too long ago found Israel to be the greatest menace to the peace of the world –– far ahead of such murderous regimes as those of Iran or of North Korea. The leaders and instigators of this new anti-Semitism are concentrated on the political left, its most active and vocal spokesmen being found in our prestige universities. Such is the anti-Zionist (anti-Semitic) focus of the left that, almost incomprehensibly, it includes a fair number of Jewish professors and other "intellectuals," not just here in the United States, but even in Israel itself. Those on the extreme left call for the abolition of the State of Israel outright, although they do not tell us what they propose to do with the five million Israeli Jews. They would presumably be left to the tender mercies of the Arabs, who would of course, have no greater joy than to emulate or perhaps even to "improve" on the Nazi model and to give "final solution" to the Jewish problem" once and for all. That isn't going to happen, of course, not because anybody in the world would lift a finger to prevent it, but because, fortunately, Israel is a very strong and most capable nation. A Death Wish for Israel. In deference to "world opinion" and to the wishes of the United States, Israel has allowed itself to be pressured into innumerable concessions to those who are sworn to destroy it. However, it seems clear that, when the chips are really down, a most decisive response on the part of Israel can be expected. With the possible exception of Carthage during the Punic Wars, almost 2500 years ago, no country in the World, no country in recorded history, has ever been threatened with extinction Israel is the one exception. Fueled by the extreme left, the "legitimacy" of Israel is a constant topic of discussion. The abolition of the "Zionist entity" gets serious attention, even in the hallowed halls of the United Nations. Iran feverishly pursues the Holy Grail of atomic weapons. Its president has publicly declared –– not once, but repeatedly –– that Israel is a "tumor" that must be excised and that it must be wiped off the map of the world. Medium-range missiles (so far, fortunately without atomic warheads) are being paraded through the streets of Teheran, with signs attached to them, shamelessly giving their destination as Jerusalem. A few eyebrows are being raised around the world, but otherwise nothing is being done about it. Because the memory of the Nazi Holocaust still lingers after all these years, the new anti-Semitism is disguised as the socially more acceptable "anti-Zionism." It is pursued and propagated by the radical left. Every leftist demonstration –– be it about the war in Iraq, against globalization, for or against whatever else –– does inevitably include appeals against "Israeli subjugation of the Palestinians," the "occupation of Palestinian lands by Israel," or simply asks for the elimination of Israel. Sadly, quite a few Jews, having been saturated with Leftism from their early years, participate in such demonstrations. While the propagation of the new anti-Semitism by prestige universities started in Europe (mostly in England), it has found fertile ground among the universities of the United States. The active participation in the new anti-Semitism by the American clergy (beginning with the Presbyterians) is a scandalous reality. Surely, not everybody who criticizes Israel is an anti-Semite. The actions of Israel, just as the actions of any other country are subject to examination and criticism. But the viciousness, volume and consistency of this criticism against Israel is such that it cannot be considered as anything but anti-Semitism –– the new anti-Semitism, disguised as anti-lsraelism or anti-Zonism. The foolish professors and the hypocritical preachers are besotted by their Leftism and by their hatred against Israel and America. Overt vilification of America has to remain muted –– it's somewhat dangerous to be too outspoken about it –– but Israel, perceived as the satrap and the handmaiden of the United States in the Middle East, is an easy target. Nobody should be fooled. Anti-Semitism is Jew-Hatred in whichever way it may be disguised. Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America and hosts the Israel Commentary website (http://www.israel-commentary.org). |
|
OBAMA REASSURES FLORIDA JEWS; JORDANIAN PRESS ON JEWS; WHAT DOES HAMAS INTEND?; BAN ISLAMIST WEB SITES?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 4, 2008. |
|
"UNITY GOVERNMENT" IN LEBANON? The Arab League proposed what is called a unity government in Lebanon. Hamas can veto any governmental action (Benny Avni, NY Sun, 5/23, p.6). What unity? Hamas has cowed Lebanon. It now controls the border, where it is preparing for another war. The government is powerless to assert sovereignty. OBAMA REASSURES FLORIDA JEWS Candidate Obama met with Florida Jews, and reassured them about his policy towards Israel. He told them: ignore rumors; don't pay attention to his Muslim middle name; he never was a Muslim; Rashid Khalidi is a scholar he respects but whose views he rejects and who is no foreign policy advisor of his; he wouldn't talk with terrorists without preconditions such as they stop supporting terrorism; he is committed to Israel's security; Iran's threat to the free world outside Israel is tiny compared to the USSR's; US bluster towards Iran has not made the world safer; the US would gain legitimacy through diplomacy; and Israel should depend on Europe, the US, and the Gulf States (NY Sun, p.1 and Ed.). He succeeded, because they were uninformed and asked the wrong questions. He got away with lies and misstatements. Europe that thinks Israel should disappear and the Gulf States are its enemies. Israel must be self-dependent. No candidate understands that. The US already is legitimate. Its critics, who hinder US proposals for sanctions against rogue states, are not. The US has engaged in diplomacy, but that just gave Iran time for more nuclear weapons development. Is Obama crazy? –– Hamas wouldn't end terrorism in order to talks with him! His original statement was rightly criticized, so he changes his statement and claims to have said that. Iran is a major threat to civilization. In concert with allies, it is radicalizing the Mideast against the West, keeping us from winning swiftly in Iraq, and developing missiles to carry imminent nuclear weapons to Europe and the US. Affirming commitment to Israel's security is vague. Most candidates do, but most Presidents allow the State Dept. its traditional anti-Zionism that would strip Israel of secure borders. Every candidate thinks a peace agreement means peace. Disregard how much of a scholar Khalidi may or may not be, he is an Islamist activist. He should be persona non grata. He may not be Khalidi's foreign policy advisor, but Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, the anti-Israel Brzyzinski, is! Obama didn't explain how he came to have a Muslim middle name. TO NEGOTIATE OR NOT TO NEGOTIATE Official Israeli policy is not to negotiate with Hamas. Min. Chaim Ramon revealed that the government of Israel does negotiate with it. The government had denied doing so. Min. Ramon thinks that Israel should liquidate Hamas, which has turned Gaza into an Islamist state. While Israel negotiates secretly with Hamas, its Foreign Ministry asked France to clarify its statement that it discusses matters but does not negotiate with Hamas. The Foreign Ministry is concerned that perhaps France is negotiating with Hamas (IMRA, 5/20). Point is, Israel is hypocritical. CHECKPOINT FOR ARABS A youth refused Israeli troops' orders for inspection (when he set off a metal detector) at a checkpoint. They shot him. He was carrying explosives. His father denied it, but a Fatah affiliate asserted he was its bomber. Fatah is the supposedly moderate, friends of peace group that Pres. Bush says Israel should let carve a state out of the Territories. An Israel Radio commentator observed that this proves a continued need for checkpoints (IMRA, 5/20). Then let Israel stop dismantling them! CHECKPOINTS FOR JEWS Checkpoints were initiated where P.A. Arabs enter Jewish areas. Now Israel has initiated checkpoints were Jews return from Israel to Samaria. The IDF sees no security reason for this. Samarian Jews think the real purpose is to harass them (Arutz-7, 5/20). The government wants them to leave, so it can turn the area over to the Arabs without much opposition or cost to the government. Jews describe Islamists as irrational. Israeli policy is irrational or unethical. JORDANIAN PRESS ON JEWS Jordanian newspapers regularly accuse the Jews of: slaughtering Christian children for religious reasons as "proved" by blood libel in Damascus and Europe; specializing in killing Arab children; seeking to dominate other peoples and confiscate their property; committing a holocaust in Gaza; not suffering one in Europe; believing they have the right to use treachery against enemies; not settling for what they are given (IMRA, 5/20). Don't count on Jordanian peace. Actually, Muslim terrorists like to kill Jewish children; Muslims dominate other peoples; Arab states confiscated their Jews' property for no reason; casualties in Gaza aren't significant and the Arabs started the war; treachery is an approved Islamic tactic –– breaking truces, waving white flags and then shooting, etc.. PALESTINIAN ARABS STARTING TO FACE THE TRUTH At least five Palestinian Arabs have admitted that Israel did not expel masses of Palestinian Arabs. Rather, the Arab states ordered the local Arabs to get out of the way of their armies temporarily. (Palestinian Media Watch in IMRA, 5/20). No longer blaming "the Jews" for everything? Will Muslim Arab hatred of Jews diminish? Hundreds of thousands of Arabs fled before ordered and before war. ARAB SOCIETY IN DECLINE An Arab wrote that Arab society has been in decline for hundreds of years, after having made contributions to civilization. (Mostly they let subject peoples make the contributions, except that they made them in Spain, for a time.) He urges his people to find out why and how to become a blessing to mankind (IMRA, 5/20). They might start by: reforming their religion so it doesn't hate other ones; stop rejecting their ideas and being ashamed to have their help; and stop trying to destroy them. If they want their people to develop useful advances, they must allow them the freedom to think for themselves. WHAT DOES HAMAS INTEND? A Hamas official said that a temporary ceasefire with Israel would not end the "resistance" (which refers to combat). He also said that if Israel attacks, it would fight back (IMRA, 5/20). Thus in the same article, he said that Hamas would continue fighting and that it would fight if attacked. Which is it? ISRAELI INFORMAL NEGOTIATIONS WITH SYRIA Working outside official constraints, elite Israelis not within the government have spent years working out a Golan-For-Peace deal with Syria. More of the Golan would be demilitarized on the Syrian side; much of it would be a joint park. Syria would pledge to end its alliance with Iran and Hizbullah. Now Israel agreed to official negotiations. Dr. Aaron Lerner remarks: "With the noose tightening, critics fear that PM Ehud Olmert will do literally anything and everything to convince AG Mazuz and the left wing Israeli "opinion makers" that he should remain in power. (IMRA, 5/21). Syrians would murder Israelis in the park. Syrian eventually would re-militarize and resume aggression. That is what happened with Oslo. READ OPPOSITION PAPERS Most people ignore sources of information and opinion differing from theirs. They may even be afraid of what they might find. I think that is being too polarized. Don't get into a rut; see what probable opponents write! It gives one food for ammunition if not for thought. It may open new perspectives. SHOULD ISLAMIST WEB SITES BE BANNED? I read the NY Times Sunday Opinion section. It had many thoughtful ideas. Some are useful. Others, I think, need to be thought through more and modified. The lead editorial disputed Sen. Lieberman's proposal to prohibit Youtube from carrying videos produced by Islamists. Youtube has guidelines against hate speech and gratuitous violence. It heeded Lieberman to the extent of eliminating 80 videos, but the Senator wants the rest deleted. He finds the Internet a prime tool of terrorism, directly and by radicalizing Muslims. The Times and ACLU consider such attempts censorship and, if enacted, ineffective. The paper would oppose restrictions on speech in a mosque (5/25). The editorial should not have expressed such righteous indignation before having discussed the issue more profoundly. The editorial may be right, but it failed to consider the difference between hate-speech by Westerners and hate-speech by Islamists in which accurate references to the Koran are sent to Muslims. The Muslims easily get radicalized. They readily commit violence, even in the West. Should an exception be made for them, under the civil liberties test of "clear and present danger?" Islamist exhortations to murder present that danger. The issue is complicated by Pres. Bush's lack of definitive leadership. He did not call for a declaration of war against holy war. If we were on a war footing, then Sen. Lieberman could argue on sounder legal grounds. Lieberman could show that Islamist web sites give aid and comfort to the enemy. As such, they may be banned without fear of this being censorship. The Senator should have been asked to explain how his proposal could be effective and how much it would cost to monitor web sites. SUPERPOWER STATUS One reader wrote that having multiple superpowers could be good, releasing more US effort for domestic concerns. Why it would do so, the reader did not explain. I think it depends on which t0he other superpowers are. If benign, then perhaps he means there would be more shared effort. (This implies that the UNO is not constructive. That is my opinion, too.) If the other superpowers are China and Russia, they would hinder US efforts, as they do now. Another reader considers that the US started the war in Iraq unilaterally, disregarding other countries' interests, and causing other countries to disregard our own. That reader has it backwards. Because other countries disregarded the interests of much the world, we had to resort to war. We entered it in a coalition, which is not unilateral. Our purpose served the civilized world, not just us, though some other countries stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this. Another wonders how can the US be a superpower. After all, the US has failing educational, pension, and health care systems, an economic crisis, and an energy shortage. That view partly is correct, but partly the problem is due to lack of leadership, government bungling, political correctness, ignorance, and vested interests, not lack of power. Our society is getting stultified. As a result, our power is declining. No candidate seems aware of it. ENERGY SHORTAGE Why did Pres. Bush react to energy shortages and 9/11 by urging us to shop more instead of to conserve and to find alternative sources of energy? A reader reminds us that Bush is in the oil industry. It sells all it can for what it can. There is some truth to that. However, Americans dislike being told to curb their appetites. Yesterday I watched motor boats whisk people around. Would the public be willing to stop buying millions of motorized pleasure vehicles, much less to junk those it has? It would take a great leader and a declaration of war to rally the people. Bush did devote a little attention to alternative sources of energy. Some people think the answer is to have government subsidize the development of alternative sources. It's subsidizing ethanol, with disastrous effects. There is said to be a shortage of petroleum refineries. The result is that sufficient stocks of oil do not get refined into sufficient stocks of gasoline. Why are there too few refineries? Conservatives say it is because of costly government requirements for building new ones. Is that so? What do liberals say about it? I haven't heard. This matter is absent from the presidential campaign. Bush suggests drilling offshore and in national parks. If we did, we'd soon squander that supply. First we should find alternatives. Then while waiting for known, sound alternatives to be built, we could drill offshore, for earlier relief. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear regularly in 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 |
|
WHY THE CHURCH SHOULD SUPPORT ISRAEL –– PART 2
Posted by Michael Evans, June 3, 2008. |
|
Read Part 1 here. |
|
Because God's Word is True. "The Law will go out from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." (Isaiah 2:3) The survival of the Jews is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. IF the Jews had not survived, God's word would not be true! Satan attempted to force Christ to pervert the word of God, but Jesus rebuked him. We must do the same. "I am not ashamed of the word of God, for it is the power of God unto salvation." Throughout the Bible God has made Eternal promises to the people of Israel that He will yet fulfill. You either believe the entire Bible, or you do not believe any of it. Israel is a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy; she is the apple of God's eye. To purposefully close our eyes to the cries of His people is like willfully and disdainfully poking our finger in God's eye. The fact that the Jewish people exist is a miracle. The rebirth of the Nation of Israel is a miracle. The restoration of the Hebrew language is a miracle, as are the return of the Jewish people to their homeland, and the reunification of Jerusalem. You either support Israel or you oppose Israel. It's just that simple. Why do we as Christians support Israel? Because God supports Israel, and His Word supports Israel. I have heard some Christians say with pride, "I will not support the Jews in Israel. They are sinners, and the nation is a sinful one." How easily we forget all the mercy God has shown to a sinful America to whom He made not one direct promise. How can we sing, "God Bless America," when this nation has killed 42 million babies...then curse Israel with our silence and self-righteous attitude? I seem to remember a scripture about a Jew who had compassion on Gentiles and said, "While they were yet sinners, I loved them." If Christ, a Jew, could love us, can we look in the face of His seed –– those He lived with and wept over –– and say, "I will not love you"? To summarize the 66 books of the Bible in one word, you only have to say the word "Israel." The Bible begins with and ends with Israel. There is no word used more. There are no promises given to any people more than to Israel. Israel's existence demonstrates the faithfulness of God, the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, and the sovereignty of God. There is a doctrine in vogue at the present time, spawned by Hell, which teaches that the Church has replaced Israel in the plan and heart of God. This doctrine is known alternately as replacement theology, progressive dispensationalism or supersessionism. The early Church did not teach this. Its roots date back to the European church. The doctrine stated that the Church has supplanted Israel in God's plan for the ages, and that the Jews have been rejected. They are blind in that they crucified Christ. Israel failed God and as a result was replaced by the Church. It teaches that the Church is a spiritual Israel and that Jerusalem is any town in which there is a church. To believe that God broke His covenant with Israel is heresy. You would have to accuse God Almighty of being a promise breaker! Do you believe God broke His covenant with Abraham, Isaac or Jacob, and that He would break His covenant with you? Another significant reason why Christians should rejoice in Israel's physical restoration and strongly support her continued existence in the Middle East is the prophesied future of her ancient and modern capital city, Jerusalem. Holy writ reveals that Zion is to be the very seat of the Messiah's earthly reign. The nations of earth will come up to visit Jerusalem when Jesus rules from the holy city as King of Kings and Lord of Lords! It is evident from scripture that the Sovereign Lord of Creation has chosen the city of Jerusalem as His earthly capital. This decision was made by the very same God who promised to restore His covenanted Jewish people to the sacred city and surrounding land in the last days before the Second Coming. How can Christians look for and welcome Jesus' prophesied return, and not rejoice in and actively support the Jewish return that was foretold to at least partially precede it? God described the details and boundaries of the land in Genesis 15:18-21: "On this day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, 'to your descendants I will give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates." This was a royal land grant, perpetual and unconditional. Genesis 17:4-9: "This will be given as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you, and I will be their God." Genesis 28:13: "I will give you and your descendants the land." God has never revoked Abraham's title deed to the land, nor has He given it to anyone else. The spot where God confirmed His covenant is an area north of Jerusalem between Bethel and Ai. It is in the heart of what is called the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria. (The United Nations refers to this as "occupied territory," and demands that Israel relinquish it.) An inalienable right is one that cannot be given away. The Bible declares this to be so in Genesis 25:23. The people were forbidden to sell the land because, "The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants." Jerusalem is the only city God claims as His own; it is called the City of God and the Holy City in scripture. He declared to Solomon in 2 Chronicles 37:7, "In this temple and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put my Name forever." In October of 1991, the now world-famous Middle East peace conference was convened at the Royal Palace in Madrid, Spain. I was sent by God to be a witness there. I was the first person to speak after then-Secretary of State James Baker concluded his remarks. I asked, "Why can't America recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital? Secondly, we are moving a military presence into Arab world for security. Why can't we have a military presence in Israel to help its security? It has suffered so greatly, and has especially paid a dear price during the Persian Gulf War." Baker was hot at my remarks and said he refused to be entangled in a fruitless debate and that the status of Jerusalem should be determined by negotiations. To this date, America has refused to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. This is a grave mistake. I have shouted this warning from the White House in Washington to the Royal Palace in Madrid as I rebuked world leaders with the words, "God does not recognize America's non-recognition position!" (The above is an excerpt from Dr. Evans' book Why Christians Should Support Israel.) Michael Evans is the author of "Beyond Iraq: The Next Move," and founder of Jerusalem Prayer Team, America's largest Christian coalition praying for the peace of Jerusalem. Contact them at www.JerusalemPrayerTeam.org and address email inquiries to jpteam@sbcglobal.net |
|
THE LIST OF RED FLAGS AGAINST OBAMA JUST KEEPS ON GROWING. NOW KURTZER'S ON HIS TEAM!
Posted by David Meir-Levi, June 3, 2008. |
|
Sh'lom Y'all, The articles critical of Obama just keep coming. I've bolded what seem to me to be the most important parts. I've put my own comments inside the text in bold italics in parentheses. Now we have: Kurtzer who has long "...been recognized by Israeli leaders, including prime ministers, as biased against Israel and is notorious for urging extreme concessions from the Jewish state. " Why did Obama pick him? Obama's monetary and political support for Father Pfleger, an avowed anti-American anti-white race-baiter (who is himself white), and long-time friend and colleague of Jeremiah Wright. More on the irrationality of his puerile approach to Iran and his view, albeit expressed indirectly, that "the settlements are the problem". Re the Ali Abunimah article, recall that this is merely one person's recollection of an incident that ocured years earlier. There is no corroboration for it .... but neither has Obama denied it (as far as I know). Moreover, Abunimah lies about Israeli and Arab actions; so maybe he is lying about Obama too. Although it is difficult to find a motive for such a lie. On the other hand, since in this article Abunimah makes the amazing statement that Obama told Abunimah personally that Obama was not being "up front" about his support for Israel, due to the exigencies of the campaign (i.e., he was lying about his support for Israel in order to get Jewish votes), and that he would be more "up front" once he was elected (i.e., will do more to support the Palestinians), the absence of a denial from Obama is quite supercilious. The list of red-flag issues and appointees just keeps on growing. This below was written by Aaron Klein and it appeared in World
Net Daily
|
|
JERUSALEM –– Jerusalem must be included in any negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, stressed Sen. Barack Obama's Middle East adviser Daniel Kurtzer. "It will be impossible to make progress on serious peace talks without putting the future of Jerusalem on the table," Kurtzer said yesterday at a conference organized by the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute or JPPPI. Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, has long been recognized by Israeli leaders, including prime ministers, as biased against Israel and is notorious for urging extreme concessions from the Jewish state. He was appointed as a primary Obama adviser on the Middle East earlier this year. During a discussion panel yesterday, Kurtzer reportedly went on to fault the Bush administration for not doing enough to pressure Israel into dividing Jerusalem. In reaction, JPPPI head Yechezkel Dror said Jerusalem must become the cultural center of the Jewish people. Kurtzer said in response that "before we do that, we must first accept a number of facts and the political reality of Arabs who live in East Jerusalem who do not feel part of the city." Israel recaptured eastern Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount –– Judaism's holiest site –– during the 1967 Six Day War. The Palestinians have claimed eastern Jerusalem as a future capital; the area has large Arab neighborhoods, a significant Jewish population and sites holy to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Tens of thousands of Arab complexes in eastern Jerusalem were constructed illegally on land purchased by the Jewish National Fund, a Jewish nonprofit that purportedly raises donor funds for the purpose of Jewish settlement, WND previously exposed. Obama's appointment of Kurtzer raised eyebrows among the pro-Israel Jewish community. "We oppose the appointment of Kurtzer because of his long, documented record of hostility to and severe pressure upon Israel," said Zionist Organization of America National Chairman Morton Klein. Kurtzer has been blasted by mainstream Jewish organizations, including the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. He has angered Israeli leaders many times for pushing Israel into what they described as extreme concessions to the Palestinians. "With Jews like Kurtzer, it is impossible to build a healthy relationship between Israel and the United States," Benjamin Nentanyahu was quoted saying in 2001 by Israel's Haaretz newspaper. Former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir said Kurtzer "frequently pressured Israel to make one-sided concessions to the Arabs; he constantly blamed Israel for the absence of Mideast peace, and paid little or no attention to the fact that the Palestinians were carrying out terrorist attacks and openly calling for the destruction of Israel." Morris Amitay, former executive director of the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in 2001: "Kurtzer ... will use his Jewishness as a protective cover for his anti-Israel views." The ZOA points out Israel's leading daily, Yediot Ahronot, editorialized on Kurtzer's negative influence against Israel: "Possibly more than any other U.S. State Department official, Kurtzer has been instrumental in promoting the goals of the Palestinians and in raising their afflictions to the center of the U.S. policymakers' agenda," the paper stated. Kurtzer first rose to prominence in 1988 when as a State Department adviser he counseled the Reagan administration to recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization led by Yasser Arafat. The PLO had carried out scores of anti-Western attacks, but in the late '80s Arafat claimed to have renounced violence. In 1988, Kurtzer was noted as the principal author of a major policy speech by then-Secretary of State George Shultz in which the U.S. government first recognized the "legitimate rights" of the Palestinians. Haaretz reported in 2001 that Kurtzer had a "vocal conflict" with an Israeli government official in Philadelphia in the summer of 1990 after Kurtzer "attacked the Israeli government for refusing to include the PLO in the peace process [and] said that this constituted the main obstacle to peace" In Kurtzer's latest book, Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: American Leadership in the Middle East, he largely blames Israel for the collapse of U.S.-brokered negotiations at Camp David. Contradicting accounts by President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barak, both of whom squarely blamed Arafat for refusing to make peace, Kurtzer argues in his book Israel did not offer enough concessions to the Palestinians. At Camp David, Israel offered Arafat a state in the Gaza Strip, West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. According to multiple reports, Barak also offered Arafat the upper sections of the Temple Mount. David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com |
|
"SENSIBLE SOLUTION" MAKES NO SENSE IN LIGHT OF HISTORY
Posted by David Meir-Levi, June 3, 2008. |
|
Michael Barton's "Mideast Conflict" letter in today's Palo Alto Daily News badly mangles history and misunderstands the basic dynamic of the conflict. He asserts that Israel was, 60 years ago, what Hamas is today. This is false. No Zionist forces anywhere, at any time, ever devoted their energies to the destruction of a sovereign state or the genocide of its people. But the destruction of Israel and the genocide of its Jews is the oft-stated and unabashedly ballyhooed goal of Hamas and Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad and the el-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade and other Arab terror organizations. Zionist leaders accepted the UK's two-state solution in 1937, and the UN's two-state solution in 1947. They re-iterated the offer in 1949 and 1967 and 1979 and 1992 and 1993 and 1995 and 2000 and 2005 and 2007. Arab leaders then and now rejected every offer, and countered with war and terrorism and the incendiary rhetoric of annihilation. The Arab leader Amin el-Husseini called for genocidal jihad against Israel in the 40's, just as today Hamas vociferously declares its genocidal jihad against Israel and any two-state solution; and demands instead the one state of "Palestine," Judenrein, and from the River to the Sea. No room for Jews or Israel in that scenario. His "sensible" solution does indeed make sense, if one ignores, or is ignorant of, the reality of almost 100 years of major Arab leaders' commitment in word and deed to the complete destruction of the Jewish state and the mass murder of its Jews. Arab terrorist leaders today, some of whom have been democratically elected by the Palestinian people, and the leaders of major Arab countries and Iran, make no pretense about their goals. They do not want a state of "Palestine" alongside of Israel. They want the state of "Palestine" instead of Israel. The sad reality is: if the terrorists put down their weapons, there would be no more violence.
David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli,
currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern
studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director
of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org).
Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com
|
|
THREE ISRAELI ARABS CHARGED WITH PLANNING TO KIDNAP, KILL SOLDIER
Posted by Bryna Berch, June 3, 2008. |
|
Yup, we really should work harder to create another Arab state in Palestine. And why just split Israel in two to make sure the delicate explosives don't set off prematurely from their trip from Gaza to the West Bank? Why don't we also give them eastern Jerusalem and anything else the little darlings want. We should certainly expedite contact between the Arabs in Israel and those in the territories (West Bank and Gaza) to make sure that the Israeli Arabs identify wholeheartedly with the terrorists. They're probably licking their chops dreaming about all the loot they'll have when they kill off the Jews. This was written by Yuval Azoulay and comes from Haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/989364.html |
|
The Shin Bet security service and the police arrested three Israeli Arabs over the course of the last three weeks on suspicion that they planned to kidnap an Israel Defense Forces soldier, murder him and demand the release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the body.
The men, all residents of Lod, are Amir Nafar, 20, who studies sharia at a Jordanian university, Iman Kadura, 26, and Yassin Hinawi, 19. Indictments were filed against the three suspects at the Petah Tikva District Court on Monday. The suspects, activists in the Islamic movement, allegedly planned to use a knife and a gun to commit the murder, after which they would videotape the soldier and bury him in an undisclosed location. According to the indictment, the suspects then planned to give the soldier's identification card to an accomplice whose identity is as yet unknown. The indictment reveals that last December, during the Eid al-Adha holiday, Amir Nafar invited his co-conspirators to a secret meeting at the Great Mosque in Lod. Nafar voiced his support there for the idea of jihad (holy war) and said that it was every Muslim's duty to uphold the notion of jihad against infidels. According to the indictment, after Kadura and Hinawi expressed their support for jihad, Nafar proposed that they perpetrate the aforementioned abduction and murder. Kadura agreed and began to save money for the terrorist attack, while Hinawi did not respond to the proposal. The method planned for the kidnapping was not outlined in the indictment. Nafar and Kadura will be charged with aiding an enemy in wartime and criminal conspiracy. Hinawi will be charged with failing to report a crime. |
|
ANTI-CHRISTIAN 'CLEANSING' CAMPAIGN PICKS UP PACE IN GAZA
Posted by Gil Ronen, June 3, 2008. |
|
Attacks on Christian targets and those identified with Western culture have grown more frequent in Gaza in the past two years, and especially since the Hamas takeover in June 2007, experts say. The targets have included churches, Christian and United Nations schools, the American International School, libraries and Internet cafes. The most recent incident occurred this past Saturday, May 31, when gunmen attacked the guards at the Al Manara school, stole a vehicle belonging to the Baptist Holy Book Society which operates the school and threatened the society's director. The Hamas leadership is not acting to stop the attacks and no one has been brought to justice. Global jihad involvement An Israeli intelligence report determined that there has been an increase in the number of attacks on Christian figures and institutions, as well as those associated with Western values. The attacks are being perpetrated by elements identified with the global jihad and radical Islam. In the past two years, groups associated with Al-Qaeda took responsibility for attacks upon Christians and Christian institutions with the expressly-stated goal of driving Christians out of Gaza. The Christian community in Gaza numbers around 3,000. According to the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IICC), the attacks on Christians have included the following: * May 18, 2008: a large bomb exploded at the entrance to a fast-food restaurant near Al-Quds Open University in the center of Gaza City. The restaurant was completely destroyed. According to the owner, it was the second time his establishment has been attacked. Gil Ronen writes for Arutz-7, where this article appeared today. |
|
PA'S ANTI-JEWISH PROPAGANDA WORSE THAN BEFORE
Posted by Avodah, June 3, 2008. |
|
This is a news item from Arutz-7
|
|
(IsraelNN.com) The anti-Jewish and anti-Israel propaganda found in Palestinian Authority textbooks in the past two years is worse than before, a committee has found. According to a report by the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education and the American Jewish Committee, textbooks used in PA schools improved somewhat after the death of former PA head Yasser Arafat, but the progress was quickly reversed following the 2006 Hamas win in the PA elections. After Arafat died, the committee found, textbooks used in the eleventh grade showed maps that included Israel's pre-1967 borders and included a mention of Jewish history in the region. Previous textbooks contained no maps including Israel and no mention of Jewish history in Israel. However, after Hamas's victory new textbooks compared Jews to snakes and encouraged students to fight for "Palestine." PA officials responded by saying that textbooks were not a cause of anti-Israel sentiment. PA Arabs dislike Israel due to checkpoints and counterterrorism operations, they said, not propaganda. Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com |
|
IRAN'S RACE FOR REGIONAL SUPREMACY: STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS FOR THE MIDDLE EAST
Posted by Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, June 3, 2008. |
|
Iran has accelerated its quest for regional supremacy through its mobilization of both Shiite and Sunni terror surrogates, including Hizbullah in Lebanon, Shiite militias in Iraq and in the Gulf, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Al Aksa Martyrs' Brigades in the Palestinian territories. This pivotal Iranian role has unfortunately not been fully appreciated, and even downplayed in certain quarters. As a result, the U.S.-led Western alliance had failed to make Iran pay a price for specific acts of aggression in the last two years and thus has emboldened the regime across the Middle East. At the same time, the Europeans have pressed Washington for further diplomatic progress on the Arab-Israeli peace process. The net effect of this dual-track diplomacy is destabilizing, for it puts Israel's defensive capabilities on the negotiating table without adequately addressing the offensive capabilities of Iran throughout the region. It must be recognized that it is Iran today that is the primary cause for instability in the Middle East, and not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The complete publication is available on the Jerusalem Center's website –– http://www.jcpa.org –– in PDF format (5M): The 84-page report may be purchased in hard copy here. Contact JCPA by email at jcpa@netvision.net.il |
|
THE END OF THE OLMERT REGIME
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 3, 2008. |
|
This article was written by Isi Leibler and it appeared today in the Jerusalem Post
|
|
It could be weeks, or even months. But Ehud Olmert's political fate is sealed. Even if the nauseating revelations in Morris Talansky's testimony fail to result in a formal indictment, Olmert has passed the point of no return in the court of public opinion, which has determined that he must go. The displays of excessive venality and abuse of power were the final straw. Furious Israelis will not forgive the prime minister for accepting "gifts" of cash in envelopes, without receipts, in an obvious attempt to conceal how the money was spent. There is also an enormous upsurge of rage concerning his use of funds for personal gratification. Israelis become infuriated when they hear that their politicians are exploiting their positions to obtain flamboyant perks such as upgrading from business to first-class air travel, or utilizing expensive hotels for luxurious family vacations. Even if the funds were personal "gifts" from Talansky, that would not square with Olmert's assurance to the nation that the cash received was used exclusively for election purposes. Likewise, even if future cross-examination were to expose weaknesses in Talansky's testimony, Olmert could not survive politically. Not that Talansky emerges as a noble reformer exposing corruption. There is an aura of sleaze about this man who has turned against his former friend –– purportedly to promote the welfare of the Jewish people. While most Israelis will welcome Olmert's impending departure, it is awful that the downfall of yet another political leader should be associated with the stench of corruption. Had he resigned after the debacle of the Second Lebanon War, he could at least have retained a semblance of dignity –– sparing himself and the nation shame, disgrace and pain. Let us not delude ourselves. The rot extends far beyond the person of the prime minister. Leaders of both Labor and Likud, either directly or via their acolytes, have brazenly indulged in illegal fundraising. Accepting "personal gifts" from both wealthy Diaspora Jews and Israelis has become the accepted norm. Even the late president Ezer Weizmann was obliged, in 2000, to resign for accepting gifts from friends. Olmert's hedonistic inclinations and ostentatious consumerism are shared by many of his political peers and their predecessors. In fact, the allegations against Olmert pale when compared to the far more serious charges of embezzlement of millions directed against his former finance minister, Avraham Hirschson. However, we should recall that in his early years, Olmert did command respect. At 28 he was the youngest member of Knesset. He even, ironically enough, developed a reputation as a crusader against corruption and crime. He was a successful fundraiser and networker. His sociability and engaging personality made him the consummate politician, able to create unique political alliances. He was loyal to his supporters and always tried to help his mates –– to the extent that it sometimes rebounded against him. He made a distinguished contribution as health minister. Together with many others, I personally supported him when he stood for election as mayor of Jerusalem on the platform of a united Jerusalem. His failure can be attributed to a lack of moral fiber and a penchant for crass political opportunism, exemplified by his fervent encouragement of Ariel Sharon's unilateral disengagement, which enabled him to become prime minister –– and also paved the way for his downward spiral, which reached in his nadir in the disastrous Lebanon War. Unfortunately for Olmert, the public exposure of his hedonism takes place not only in the wake of his political failures but also at a time when the accumulation of resentment and rage against galloping corruption from the previous decade has reached a boiling point. In retrospect, it is now clear that double standards were applied to Shas leader Aryeh Deri earlier, when he was sentenced to jail for breaches of the law that pale in significance compared to the recent exposures of corruption. Questions are now also being raised as to why big fish like Ariel Sharon were not indicted in relation to the Greek Island affair. In contrast, small fry like Naomi Blumenthal received a draconian jail sentence (subsequently commuted) for merely having paid the overnight hotel bill for some of her supporters. Only when Omri Sharon began serving time in jail did it finally dawn on politicians that the party was over. The reality is that until recently, the dysfunctional political system encouraged many initially honest politicians to indulge in corrupt practices. When breaching the law to raise party funds became the norm, it was inevitable that some of the cash would ultimately find its way into the pockets of individuals. Proportional representation denies electors the possibility of rewarding or punishing politicians. Likewise primaries –– theoretically the most democratic means of choosing candidates –– in practice encourage political aspirants to appeal to the lowest common denominator as well as engage in illegal fundraising to garner support from the vast number of voters needed. The British system obliges ministers to take responsibility and resign when their professional civil servants fail. By contrast, in Israel, Olmert was able to resist the calls for his resignation even after the debacle of the Second Lebanon war. The good tidings are that public corruption is today in retreat. It is a healthy sign when the highest officers of the land are aware that they will be judged more harshly than the average citizen. The positive fallout from this Olmert scandal is that it is highly unlikely that politicians will in future dare to illegally solicit or accept funds from wealthy Jews to promote their own political careers or satisfy their lust to emulate the mega-rich. That Olmert has lost the confidence of the nation is beyond dispute. Like any citizen, he must be presumed legally innocent until convicted, and he is entitled to his day in court. But in the absence of focus or moral authority, his refusal to step down is unconscionable and reminiscent of former president Moshe Katzav, who was ultimately forced to back down. But unlike Katzav, Olmert is engaged in delicate negotiations which have chilling life-and-death implications on five fronts –– Palestinian, Syrian, Iranian, that of Hizbullah and that of Hamas. It is surrealistic to have a leader determining whether to go to war or cede national assets, when any initiative he undertakes is perceived as seeking to divert attention from his own problems. Indeed, his own political survival may directly conflict with the requirements of the nation. It reflects on Olmert's mind-set that he fails to appreciate the obscenity of clinging to power under such circumstances. The coalition, especially members of Kadima, cannot permit Ehud Olmert to continue conducting the affairs of state until the Talansky cross-examination. He could cause untold damage. It is scandalous that he is continuing to travel to Washington and carrying on business as usual. They must demand that he step down or suspend himself immediately. Should he shamelessly refuse, they must throw him out, or they will bring upon themselves the wrath of voters on the day of reckoning –– election day. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
JUDICIAL UNREST
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, June 3, 2008. |
|
It is encouraging to hear those on the "inside" expressing the same concerns and criticisms that we "outsiders" have been voicing for years. I refer to the system here as the Israeli unJustice system. It is important to understand what is the difference between an injustice and unJustice. An injustice can occur with in a system of justice when some outside factor interferes with the justice system. An unJustice system is when the entire system is not just. In Israel we have multi tiered system. If you belong to the right group then certain laws do not apply to you or at the worst in their most lenient possible interpretation. We see this all the time in the way laws are applied to the "left" and the "right." Furthermore, when the mood suits them, judges can invent their own laws and ignore those on the books. In short, guilt or innocence is a function of who you are and not what you have done. This is an unJustice system and that is what we have here. Read the article below from Arutz-7
Stop complaining and fight back!
|
|
(IsraelNN.com) Tensions within the justice and law enforcement system mounted Tuesday as Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann and retiring District Court Judge Sheli Timen separately expressed sharp criticism of the police and prosecution. Minister Friedmann tore into the police and prosecution for the wiretaps they carried out in the investigation carried out against then-Justice Minister Chaim Ramon in 2006. The suspicions against Ramon involved a kiss between him and a female soldier, which the soldier later claimed involved improper behavior by Ramon. Friedmann spoke before a Knesset committee of inquiry established to investigate the matter of the wiretaps in the Ramon trial. Wiretaps and pressure The police carried out wiretaps on the soldier's phone and a senior female police officer. Supt. Miri Golan met with the soldier and pressured her to testify against Ramon. The prosecution did not inform Ramon's defense attorneys of the wiretaps and initially did not turn over some of the wiretap transcripts despite being instructed to do so by the court. Friedmann said Tuesday that Ramon's misbehavior was a much less serious matter than the way the case was handled by the authorities. "The wiretap affair is harsh and serious," he said. "There is an uncompromising struggle by the entire legal system against the investigation. Inside the ministry there is very fierce opposition: one must not touch, one must not investigate." Committee of inquiry "The situation is unbearable," Friedmann told the committee Tuesday. "I am convinced that there is no choice but to establish a governmental committee of inquiry with authority because if it does not have authority, the matter will be made to fade away... We have a justice system which you would expect to be prepared for some kind of meaningful supervision process and I do not feel this is so," Friedmann explained. Friedmann accused Attorney General Menachem Mazuz of doing "all within his power" to block Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's initiative to appoint a committee of inquiry to investigate the wiretaps. Public Security Minister Avi Dichter also refused to conduct an investigation of the matter, Friedmann said. He added: "It turns out that when the wiretaps dig up evidence that is in favor of the accused and not against him, these materials are not passed on..." Confessed to murder, acquitted Meanwhile, a Tel Aviv District Judge, Sheli Timen, attacked the police and prosecution in an unusual and controversial verdict Monday which acquitted a man named Alexei Volkov who had been charged with murdering his ex-wife Yulia in 2006, despite a confession and re-enactment the man had given the police. The verdict, which was given by a panel of judges headed by Timen, determined that the police investigation was sloppy and that there was no way of knowing what had happened in the deceased's apartment on the day she was killed. The judges determined that the police saw Volkov as the exclusive suspect in the case and neglected all other directions of investigation, "ignored warning lights" and showed carelessness in collecting evidence. The police ignored evidence implicating Yulia's boyfriend and did not interrogate him properly, preferring instead to wear down Volkov and make him fit his version of events to the police's evidence. 'Judge Timen is strange' Sources within the prosecution called Timen "strange" and accused him of overstepping his role by criticizing them in his verdict. Timen said in response that the police and prosecution are covering up their own misdeeds in the case by mounting personal attacks on him. In an interview he gave Haaretz two months ago, Timen said that judges were afraid of the feminist lobby and regularly issued guilty verdicts in cases involving sexual allegations. "A person charged with sexual offenses will almost certainly go to jail, and his family will be destroyed," Timen said. "And if there is a false complaint, G-d forbid –– it doesn't matter. That is the atmosphere today. They mob you after every 'innocent' verdict." Aryeh Zelasko lives in Beitar Illit, south of Jerusalem. He is Director of Sales and Marketing of Israel Visit (www.israelvisit.co.il) which provides information and an internet buying facility for American visitors to Israel. |
|
RESIDENTS PROTEST ARMY'S RETREAT IN FACE OF ARAB RIOTERS
Posted by Lee Caplan, June 3, 2008. |
|
This is by Hillel Fendel and it appeared in Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNN.com). |
|
(IsraelNN.com) Residents of Kedumim in Samaria held a protest Tuesday morning against the alleged retreat by IDF forces when Arab rioters attacked. The incident in question occurred this past Sabbath. Dozens of Arabs threw rocks at Jews in the outpost of Shvut Ami, adjacent to Kedumim, throughout the morning prayer service and intermittently over the course of the day. Army forces finally arrived around 6 PM, by which time some 150 Arabs had arrived, apparently attempting to enter and take over the Jewish neighborhood. The Jews were not encouraged when the senior officer of the IDF force, the deputy regiment commander, was quoted as having saying, "I'm here to arrest Jews." The Arabs continued to throw rocks, the soldiers fired in the air, and a Kedumim security team member was hit near the eye by a rock. He was evacuated to a hospital for treatment, and was later reported to have narrowly escaped serious injury. Within a short time, though the Arabs continued to attack, the army forces retreated. Shortly afterwards, when the Sabbath ended just after sundown, the soldiers returned, evicted the Jewish residents from Shvut Ami –– for possibly the seventh time in a year –– and declared the area a "closed military zone." The residents say they will return, as they have done after every past eviction. Residents Protest Army Cowardice At the demonstration Tuesday morning, dozens of residents rallied outside the local army base and demanded to know why the soldiers retreated, leaving the citizens unprotected and at risk of their lives. "What has happened to our army?" asked Hila Mordechai, one of the organizers of the protest, through her megaphone. "This is not the IDF we know, nor the IDF we strive for... We have come to remind you of your job... We stand here shocked and outraged, at your behavior in the face of Arab rock-throwing and cursing, and at the shameful commands issued to you by your commanders ..." Finally, the deputy commander arrived, but did not respond to the accusations. One protestor called out through the megaphone: "We are all partners in the IDF. We send our husbands and sons to protect our homeland –– and at the same time, officers like you abandon our children to Arab murderers! Who will take responsibility for the next murder that will happen here?!" Another protest is planned for this Friday. An Arutz-7 query regarding the incident has been submitted to the IDF spokesman's office. Military, Police Raze Hazon David Synagogue 33rd Time (IsraelNN.com) Police and soldiers Monday night destroyed the Hazon David synagogue at the entrance to Kiryat Arba, the 33rd time they have razed the structure. Residents of the outpost have rebuilt it every time. It was built several years ago in memory of Hezi Mualem and David Cohen, who were murdered by Arab terrorists at the entrance to Kiryat Arba. Prayer services have been held there daily, and the government did not begin trying to destroy it until several months ago. Hevron-Kiryat Arba residents have charged that prior to one of the destruction efforts, security personnel stole a security radio and telephone from the community's guard booth prior to the destruction. MK Eldad: Police Doing Arabs' Work (IsraelNN.com) MK Aryeh Eldad (NU/NRP) said Monday night that the police proved unable to prevent Arab rock-throwing at the flag dance parade in Jerusalem but are preparing to tear down the Hazon David synagogue in Kiryat Arba once more. "The police need to begin protecting Jews instead of doing the Arabs' work for them," Eldad said. Housing Minister Rejects Building in 'E-1' (IsraelNN.com) Housing Minister Zev Boim (Kadima) has rejected building in the proposed "E-1" section of Ma'aleh Adumim because the United States would vehemently object, he told Voice of Israel government radio Tuesday morning. The area is "a sensitive issue" because of Arab protests that it cuts off Ramallah from Arab areas south of Jerusalem. He added that Ma'aleh Adumim suffers from a housing shortage for second-generation residents but said that no construction is being allowed in E-1 except for the recently built police station. Contact Lee Caplan at leescaplan@yahoo.com |
|
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 3, 2008. |
|
ISRAEL DISARMS INTENDED JEWISH VICTIMS We saw that Israel confiscated most settlers' arms, while approving more arms for the P.A. police. The P.A. police force recruits terrorists and many police continue terrorism. Israel's government gave an excuse: some weapons were stolen from settlers. That makes no sense. Weapons also are stolen from the Army, but the Army is not disarmed. I conclude that the government is trying to frighten the Jews from leaving Judea-Samaria, according to the government's appeasement-minded ideology that repeatedly failed in Israel and in Europe. It is frightening them by making sure some are killed. Unconscionable! When did this policy start? A settler found Arabs burning wheat fields owned by Jews. He fired a warning shot, to scare them off. Israeli police confiscated his weapon in 2005. They still did not return it, though he acted responsibly. Police searched the nearby village, but did not find the arsonists (Arutz-7, 5/18). Police often don't care to protect settlers. The Police treat Arab vandalism as a criminal offense, and try to apprehend individuals guilty of particular crimes. (Police also treat Jewish victims and especially defenders as culprits.) It isn't an individual crime. It is part of war by arson, guns, rocks, and words. Practically the whole Arab population sympathizes with that war and, when the opportunity arises, participates in it. They wear civilian clothes, but commit acts of ethnic war. So long as a Muslim Arab population remains, such acts of war will continue. The question is not how to identify the perpetrators of individual crimes, but how to identify the few Arabs who assist Israel against terrorism. Then the mass of the Arabs must be gotten out of there fast. The few decent ones should be paid well to leave, for their children may become radicalized. The same goes for Israeli Arabs. OLMERT'S RESPONSE MISSES THE POINT PM Olmert came to speak at some ceremony. He was booed on arrival. A crowd approached the dais, bearing signs, "The Country Is With The Golan." When Olmert resumed speaking, he said, "'The most beautiful place I visited recently is the Golan Heights. Let's put politics aside.' He later added that 'we have no other country aside from the Jewish State.'" (IMRA, 5/22.) If the Jews have no other country but the Jewish State, then don't dismember Israel, giving the enemy beautiful and strategic territory that affords Israel secure borders. Keep the traditionally Jewish Golan Heights within the Jewish state. ELECTIONEERING VS. NATIONAL SECURITY Pres. Bush's brief reference to appeasement of fanatical dictators, imagining that we can say persuade them to become peaceful, drew the ire from Democratic leaders. They took it personally, though appeasement has many followers. When candidate Obama said he would meet unconditionally with the fanatical leader of Iran, candidate Clinton criticized him as "irresponsible and, frankly, naive." But when Pres. Bush referred to such appeasement, she criticized Bush. So much for her integrity. Obama denied saying it would be unconditional. However, he had been asked if he would meet unconditionally; he replied, "I would." [He keeps pretending he had said something less subject to mockery.] Obama called the President's statement a political attack. (He was discussing policy on a high plane, as did Winston Churchill during the era of appeasement of the Axis.) House Speaker Pelosi contends that Bush was out of line, bringing up appeasement during Israel's anniversary celebration. Sure she would, for she had gone to Syria, enemy of the US and Israel, as if helping to make peace. The leading Democrats have called Bush's use of the word, "appeasement," reckless, outrageous, and undignified. They are like "thought police" (R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., NY Sun, 5/22, Op.-Ed.). Unethical. Are the Democrats trying to turn legitimate policy and philosophical debate into politically incorrect speech? In so doing, they would impair our civil liberties. They endanger national security by trying to obstruct debate on it. I find them contemptible for their deceit. They are political animals in the worst sense. They are what they accuse Bush of being. Remember, although I thought that Bush's speech was great, I criticism him for not living up to it. He engages in appeasement, too. OLMERT STONEWALLS BUT SAYS HE'S COOPERATING PM Olmert said he now will cooperate, after all, with the Comptroller's investigation of Israel's failure to get Jonathan Pollard released. However, Olmert "still refuses to be deposed in person; is not willing to meet with the State Comptroller; and will not respond to questions in person." He gets other people to reply, and their answers are dubious. Haaretz explained that Pollard pled guilty at his trial, and was convicted of selling military secrets to Israel. Actually, Pollard had no trial but a plea bargain that the government violated. His crime was giving, not selling, intelligence. Pollard' s attorneys repeatedly asked Haaretz to stop repeating lies (IMRA, 5/20). Haaretz is deceitfully anti-Pollard. HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH'S NEW DISTORTIONS Human Rights Watch (HRW) reports on Israeli Bedouin. It claims that Israel discriminates against them for the same housing violations that it permits Israelis. However, Israelis who didn't get building approval are not analogous to Bedouin who stole State land to build illegally on. HRW calls Israel discriminatory for retroactively legalizing some of the Jews' building. (Israel did the same with some Bedouin villages. Some Bedouin building is on Army training grounds.) HRW also claims that Israel violates the "land rights" of those "indigenous people" on their "ancestral lands." Israeli Bedouin, being wanderers, rejected opportunities to register real estate property under Ottoman, Mandatory, and Israeli rule. Only recently have they claimed some land. But they don't own it. Squatting confers no rights. HRW is defamatory in accusing Israel of stealing "Bedouin land," when the reverse is true. HRW proves it when it tries to excuse the Bedouin's failure to register land as an attempt to avoid taxation and conscription. Should tax evaders and draft dodgers be allowed to claim State land? Should Israel continue compensating them when it demolishes their illegal structures and gives them free or cheap land and housing in towns? HRW omits or minimizes those special deals Israel offers them. The report overlooks health subsidies and other special treatment for Bedouin. "The report omits or distorts discussion of factors that do not support HRW's political message, such as environmental issues surrounding illegal Bedouin construction; the massive birth rate in the Bedouin population and the large welfare and medical budget necessary to sustain it; Bedouin polygamy; and security issues related to Bedouin weapons and drug smuggling." HRW stands up for the traditional Bedouin way of unrestricted grazing (which consumes large tracts). But the Bedouin overgraze. That produces desert. Their over-production of children has produced many sick ones (that they expect Israel to pay for curing) and their polygamy causes social trauma in their families. Israel is afraid of Bedouin rioting if it enforced the ban on polygamy against Bedouin. So the problem is non-enforcement of law against the Bedouin. "HRW's 130 page report, and the large public relations campaign that accompanied it, is another expression of the primacy of HRW's political agenda. The absence of any discussion of the Bedouin in Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Jordan reflects HRW's demonization of Israel." The Bedouin way of life involve smuggling of terrorists, arms, drugs, and women. HRW ignores that (NGO Monitor in IMRA, 5/20). Bedouin stone Israeli buses. I think the government is foolish to try to appease Arabs. Can't succeed. They absorb taxes disproportionately and offer little in return, and never are satisfied. ISLAMIC PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUE Hamas rejected Israeli conditions for a ceasefire and condemned Egypt for not siding with Hamas, on the grounds that Hamas accepted Egypt's proposal first. Actually, Egypt has been trying to keep Israel from conquering Hamas. That is how it acted towards terrorists all along. I suppose that Egypt was plumping for a ceasefire so Hamas could continue its military preparations unhindered by the IDF. Hamas is fortunate that Israel has such weak leadership that it has failed to send in sufficient force to smash Hamas and keep it down. In that sense, Egypt has been siding with Hamas, but wants to make the deal attractive enough to hook Israel on it. Hamas has the Muslim approach of always complaining that it is treated unfairly, didn't get enough, and mediation means taking the Muslims' side totally. Beware Abbas' asking the US to be an "honest broker." Hamas' complaint is the usual combination of bargaining and propaganda. EASY TO FALL INTO BIAS Candidate Obama observed that Americans no longer can over-consume food and gasoline without consequences to society. I agree. In any case, a conservative columnist for the NY Sun assumed that Obama intends to regulate food and gasoline consumption. The rest of the article argued the inefficacy of regulation and governmental mistakes in it, as in inflating food prices by turning corn into ethanol and Japan destroying stocks of rice to keep the price high for its farmers. Obama had said nothing about regulation. He was talking about societal and economic problems resulting from over-indulgence. The columnist was primed to accuse Obama of wanting to over-regulate. Obama and his primary rival do believe that government can resolve many social problems. Since he didn't approach this case that way, the columnist expressed bias. It is a kind of bias that is easy to fall into. It is a kind of stereotyping. Let us try to avoid it. HOW GREAT ARE THE MENACES TO ISRAEL? Some people minimize the Hamas threat to Israel. Really? When Israel is urged to demolish Hamas, the government replies that so many troops and other resources would be involved, that if Hizbullah also strikes, Israel would be unprepared to confront Hizbullah sufficiently. What does that tell us? It tells us that Israel either lacks sufficient forces or has let Hamas become too strong. It made a grave error in not destroying Hamas before. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear regularly in 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 |
|
JEWS UNITED FOR ISRAEL'S FRIENDS
Posted by Bryna Berch, June 2, 2008. |
|
What is it with secular Israelis. They release Arab murderers and harshly imprison religious Jews who have committed no crime. They happily promote Arafat's clone, Mahmoud Abbas, and reject Christians who stick up for Jewish ownership of Israel. Do they have an identity problem? This is by Caroline Glick and it appeared in
|
|
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suffered a humiliating setback this week in his quest for international legitimacy. Ahmadinejad is expected to arrive in Rome this week to participate in a UN summit on the global food crisis (which has been caused by the rise in oil prices that Ahmadinejad is so pleased to have had a role in fomenting). Ahmadinejad was hoping that while in the Italian capital he would be able to have a photo-op with Pope Benedict XVI. To secure the meeting, Ahmadinejad –– who has called for all nations to convert to Islam or be destroyed (except for the Jews who can do nothing to avoid destruction) –– has been sweet talking the Vatican for months. In his latest move, during a meeting in April with Archbishop Jean-Paul Gobel, the Vatican's representative in Iran, Ahmadinejad referred to the Vatican as a "positive force for justice and peace." But Benedict was unmoved by Ahmadinejad's flattery. His request for an audience with the pontiff was unceremoniously rejected. Not surprisingly, the Israeli government has nothing to say about Benedict's humiliation of Ahmadinejad. This is unsurprising because the Olmert-Livni-Barack-Yishai government has never bothered to pay attention to anything that the pope does. His bold moves in recent years to challenge Islamic leaders to repudiate murder and coercion in the name of Allah have elicited no support and indeed no reaction of any kind from Jerusalem. The Olmert-Livni-Barack-Yishai government's neglect of the Vatican is regrettable, but it is par for the course for this government which has limited Israel's foreign policy to appeasing Palestinian terrorists and kowtowing to the State Department. The best that can be said for this state of affairs is that at least Israel's neglect of the Catholic Church –– like its neglect of Africa, Asia, Europe, South America and Australia –– is benign. In contrast, the treatment that the Vatican has received from some American Jewish leaders has been far from neglectful and far from benign.
RATHER THAN stand with the Catholic church as Benedict moves boldly against radical Islam, American Jewish leaders led by ADL Director Abe Foxman have been attacking the church for its theological decisions. Last year, fresh from his bitter campaign against Mel Gibson's movie about Jesus, Foxman began targeting the Vatican for its decision to permit wider use of the traditional Latin Mass which includes a prayer for Jews to convert to Christianity. While it is unpleasant for Jews to consider millions of Catholics praying for us to abandon our faith, it is unclear why what they say in their churches should interest us so long as they aren't demanding our presence at disputations or forcibly converting us. After all, in our prayers, we explicitly reject their faith as false. And this is to be expected. Every religion asserts itself as the one true faith and demeans all others as false. As the American Jewish radio host Dennis Prager noted at a lecture for the David Horowitz Freedom Center in Santa Barbara, California this weekend, "There is no Judeo-Christian faith. There are Judeo-Christian values."
JUDAISM AND Christianity are different religions. But they share common moral values and it is on the basis of these values that joint action can be taken and separate actions can be judged. Jews and Christians cannot judge each other on the basis of theology, only on the basis of morality. Pope Benedict's actions clearly show him to be a friend of Israel and the Jewish people. Unfortunately, due to the grave absence of Jewish leadership in both Israel and the US today, he has little to show for it. But any grief that Israel's neglect, and men like Foxman's unnecessary criticisms may have caused the pope are nothing compared to the insults Jewish leaders have heaped in recent months on our most prominent Protestant Christian friend. The humiliating treatment that Pastor John Hagee, the founder and national chairman of Christians United for Jews has suffered at the hands of American Jewish leaders is simply a travesty. This week in Washington, DC, AIPAC is hosting its annual policy conference. It will be an illustrious affair. Heavy-hitters from both American political parties will be in attendance, as will scholars and activists from Israel and the US. But one name is noticeably absent from the three-day program. John Hagee –– who in three years has transformed CUFI into a grassroots pro-Israel movement that dwarfs AIPAC in size –– is not on the program. And this is a horrible thing. AIPAC's decision to shun Hagee says something terrible about the state of American Jewish politics today. Quite simply, Hagee has become a victim of liberal American Jewish leaders' decision to place their leftist political preferences above their concern for Israel's survival and for the well-being of American Jewry.
SENATOR BARACK Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for President, has a problem with his religious background. Until last weekend, Obama was a 20-year member of the Trinity United Baptist Church in Chicago. In recent months, his former pastor Jeremiah Wright, the man who converted him to Christianity, officiated at his wedding and baptized his daughters, has been exposed as an anti-American, anti-white and anti-Semitic political activist who preaches a black supremacist version of Christian teachings to his enthusiastic congregation. Then too, Obama's Catholic friend, and friend of Trinity United, Father Michael Pfleger, has been exposed as an anti-American, anti-white and anti-Semitic political activist who preaches a black supremacist version of Christian teaching to his enthusiastic congregation. Obama's longstanding and deep connections to these spiritual mentors have placed him in a problematic position vis-à-vis the American electorate. To mitigate the damage, Obama's supporters have sought to counterbalance Wright with a conservative clergyman of equal weight in the Republican camp. And Hagee, with his avowedly anti-homosexual, anti-abortion views and public prominence was the chosen target.
THE FIRST Obama supporter to hone in on Hagee was Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism. Yoffie has long sought to discredit Hagee who he sees as a threat to his view that the only way to be pro-Israel is to support the establishment of a Palestinian state. Hagee endorsed Republican John McCain for President in March. In early April, Yoffie called on McCain to reject Hagee's endorsement and he called on American Jews to reject CUFI, claiming that CUFI's unconditional support for Israel precluded its support for a Palestinian state. In his words, "No, we cannot cooperate with Christian Zionists. What [Hagee and his allies] mean by 'support of Israel' and what we mean by 'support of Israel' are two very different things. Their vision of Israel rejects a two-state solution, rejects the possibility of a democratic Israel, and supports the permanent occupation of all Arab lands now controlled by Israel."
FOLLOWING YOFFIE's lead, Democratic activists desperate to find a Republican counterpart to Wright, focused their fire on Hagee. They attacked him for anti-homosexual remarks he has made. And they grossly distorted remarks he made on historical Christian anti-Semitism to portray him as an enemy of the Catholic church. Then too, they attacked him for a sermon he gave where he argued that the Holocaust was God's way of getting the Jews to Israel and so absurdly implied that a man who has devoted his professional life to improving Jewish-Christian relations, ending Evangelical Christian drives to convert Jews and supporting Israel is an anti-Semite. The Democratic Jewish charge against Hagee compelled McCain to reject Hagee's endorsement, and so drove another wedge between McCain and the Republican voting Christian Right. It also successfully created an illusion of symmetry between Wright and Hagee. This in and of itself is morally repugnant since there is no moral equivalence between Hagee and Wright. Hagee clearly loves America, doesn't have a problem with whites or blacks and loves Jews. Wright is a man defined by his hatreds. But even more insidious than Hagee's forced estrangement from McCain is the effort to have him disowned by the American Jewish community and Israel. Yoffie, together with the pro-Palestinian Jewish American lobbying group J Street, have been pressuring Jewish leaders to distance their organizations from Hagee and CUFI and to boycott CUFI's annual conference in Washington next month. Not surprisingly, Foxman answered their call by announcing that he was placing the ADL's relations with CUFI "on hold." And no doubt bowing to their pressure, AIPAC neglected to invite Hagee to its policy conference this week. As for Israel, just as Yoffie made his initial attack on Hagee, Hagee was setting out to Israel with a thousand CUFI members on a solidarity mission. He held a rally of his supporters at the Jerusalem Conference Center. There he distributed six million dollars in contributions from CUFI members to Israeli charities and educational institutions. No doubt in response to Yoffie's pressure, the only prominent Israeli politicians who attended the event were Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu and former Likud minister and MK Uzi Landau. No government minister attended and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert sufficed with a private meeting with Hagee.
HAPPILY, NOT all American Jewish leaders have agreed to toe the line. Senator Joseph Lieberman has rejected demands by Yoffie and J Street to boycott CUFI's conference in Washington. The American Jewish Committee and the Zionist Organization of America have refused to distance themselves from Hagee. Israel and American Jewry should follow their example. These are terrible times for world Jewry. Islamic Jew-hatred is genocidal. The international Left has betrayed us. Our leaders are weak. Our friends are few and far between. If we wish to persevere in this environment we must embrace those who support us while eschewing those –– even in our own ranks –– who tell us that support for Israel is conditional. Now is not the time to quibble over Christian theology. Now is the time to stand united with our friends against our common enemies. |
|
SHATTERED ENGAGEMENTS
Posted by Barry Rubin, June 2, 2008. |
|
Engagement doesn't always produce marriage. In the U.S.-Iran case, diplomatic engagements have been repeatedly disastrous. Yet many think the idea of engagement was just invented and never tried. 1. President John Kennedy pressed Iran for democratic reforms in the early 1960s.. The Shah responded with his White Revolution which horrified traditionalists and moved them to active opposition. One of them was named Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The history of U.S. engagement with the PLO and Syria is similar. The Oslo era (1992-2000) was engagement as disaster, establishing a PLO regime indifferent to its people's welfare, increasing radicalism and violence, with no gain for peace. Aside from the worsened security problem, Israel's international image was badly damaged by concessions made and risks taken. America's making the PLO a client brought it no gratitude or strategic gain.[3] Similarly, Syria used the 1991-2000 engagement era to survive its USSR superpower sponsor's collapse while doing everything it wanted: dominating Lebanon, sponsoring terrorism, and sabotaging peace. U.S. secretaries of state visited Damascus numerous times and achieved nothing, a process that continued up to 2004. Syria first helped Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, then sponsored terrorists who disrupted Iraq and killed Americans.[4] There have, of course, been successful engagements –– but not with Iran, Syria, or the PLO. The most successful was Egypt's turnaround by Nixon and Kissinger. A partial success was changing Libya's behavior. In those two cases, American power, not compassion, achieved success. Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi and Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat ("America holds 99 percent of the cards") knew they were weak and needed to stop America from hitting them hard. Engagements, of course, have effects other than direct success. One is to buy time for someone. But who? If one party subverts other states, builds nuclear weapons, demoralizes the other's allies, and sponsors terrorism during talks while the other side...just talks, the first side benefits far more. Second, if one side gets the other to make concessions to prove good faith and keep talks going, that side benefits. Keeping engagement going becomes an end in itself as the weaker side uses a diplomatic version of asymmetric warfare to make gains. Finally, while using talks to deescalate tensions apparently benefits everyone, matters are not so simple. By talking, a stronger side can throw away its leverage. The weaker side does not have to back down to avoid confrontation. So engagement, without pressure or threat, benefits the weaker side. If the stronger side is eager to reach agreement, the weaker side has more leverage. The advantage is transferred from the strongest side to the most intransigent one. Here, Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah have the upper hand. Senator Obama doesn't understand these points. To see how alien a normal liberal concept of foreign policy is for him, note what he could have said: "America must be strong to protect its interests, values, and friends against ruthless adversaries. But if America is strong, it can also be flexible. Let us engage countries and leaders by telling them clearly our demands and goals. Once Iran understands the United States will counter its threats of genocide against Israel, involvement in terrorism against Americans, and threats to our interests it may back down. If Iran gives up its extremism, we are ready to offer friendship. But if Iran remains extremist we will quickly abandon engagement and never hesitate to respond appropriately." This way, a leader shows he knows how to use both carrots and sticks. But Obama has never said anything like this. He has no concept of toughness as a necessary element in flexibility, or of deterrence as a precondition to conciliation. Nor does he indicate that he would be steadfast if engagement failed. He defines no U.S. preconditions for meeting or conditions for agreement. He offers to hear Iran's grievances but says nothing about American grievances. Radical Islamists interpret this strategy as weakness of which they will take full advantage. That's why Iran, Syria, and Hamas favor Obama. Thus spoke Lebanese cleric Muhammad Abu al-Qat on Hizballah's al-Manar television on May 10: "The American empire will very soon collapse....This won't happen as a result of war....An American Gorbachev will surface in America, and he will destroy this empire.[5] Islamists and radicals want Obama because they understandably expect him to play into their hands. By the same token, more moderate Arab regimes and observers are horrified. Obama is so scary and is accused of appeasement not because he wants to meet enemies in person but because he doesn't want to meet them in struggle. He doesn't know how international politics work through power, threats, deterrence, self-interest, and credibility. He doesn't comprehend that totalitarian ideologies cannot be moderated by apology or weakness. Whatever you think of Senator John McCain, he understands these basic concepts. That's why he's a centrist who can be trusted to protect American national interests. Whatever you think of Senator Hillary Clinton, she understands these basic concepts. That's why she's a liberal who can be trusted to protect American national interests. And that's why Obama is both a dangerously naïve amateur and a leftist posing as a liberal. End Notes [1] On Points 1-4, see Barry Rubin, Paved with Good Intentions: The American Experience and Iran. (Oxford, 1980; Viking-Penguin, 1981) [2] On Point 5, see Barry Rubin, Cauldron of Turmoil: America in
the Middle East, (Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1992.) available for
free at
[3] On U.S. policy and the PLO, see Barry Rubin and Judith Colp Rubin, Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography Oxford University Press 2003; paperback, 2005. British/Commonwealth edition: Continuum 2003. Australian edition: Allan & Unwin. Italian edition: Mondadori, 2004; Hebrew edition, Yediot Aharnot, 2005; Turkish edition, Aykiri Yayincilik, 2005. [4] On U.S. policy and Syria, see Barry Rubin, The Truth About Syria, Palgrave-MacMillan (2007); paperback, 2008. [5] http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1772.htm 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 article is archived at
|
|
PLEASE PROTEST THE ABUSE OF RIVKA MEIRCHIK
Posted by Lee Caplan, June 2, 2008. |
|
Please call the Israel Ambassador at 202-364-5590 and express your outrage. Please also call your local Israel consulate and express your outrage. Contact information can be found below. Tizku lemitzvos. Read this article for background information. |
|
Israeli Judge Again Postpones Release Decision for Rivka Meirchik On June 1, Kfar Saba Magistrate Nitza Maimon Shashua scheduled yet another hearing for a decision on the release of Rivka Meirchik despite an earlier decision by Petah Tikva District Court Judge Ruth Lorch that her arrest and detention are illegal.. [The hearing on June 1 was originally scheduled for May 29 but was postponed after chief police prosecutor Shir Laufer said she was vacationing in Eilat.] Meirchik, who remained handcuffed and shackled in leg-irons throughout the hearing, has refused to be handcuffed inside the Neve Tirza prison where she is kept in solitary confinement and denied visitation and telephone rights. Prison authorities have also denied her the right from meeting with her attorney in her cell. After the hearing, prison guard Orit Hasidi speeded Meirchik out of the courtroom into a waiting prison van despite the judge's order to allow her to meet with defense attorney Aviad Visoly. Earlier, police at the Kfar Saba court barred friends from entering the open court session after they said that Tzvia Sariel, who earlier this year spent three months in prison in similar circumstances, was provocative. The judge later agreed to admit her. Meirchik, who appeared gaunt, managed to convey to family members that she was hungry. "My sister is very allergic and can only eat certain foods," Rivka's sister Racheli said. "We, the family, hired the attorney, because we want to see Rivka released. Why is there so much foot-dragging and why does it [judicial process] take so long?" Meirchik, like Sariel, has refused to accept the authority of the court including agreeing to police conditions for her release and is being held until the end of judicial proceedings. "According to the police release sheet, the reason for her arrest was that she refused to identify herself," Visoly said. "There was no other cause." Visoly said the police arrest record shows that Meirchik, arrested at the Shvut Ami Jewish community near Kedumim on April 2, was arrested for failing to identify herself and not for committing any other offenses. Only later, Visoly said, police charged Meirchik with trespassing, disturbing and assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest and violating a military closure order. "The arresting officer did not follow protocol when he failed to identify himself or explain [to Meirchik] that she was arrested and for what reason," Visoly said. "According to paragraph 24 of the criminal code, this arrest was illegal. And in the case of an illegal arrest, the suspect has a right to resist." The Petah Tikva District Court also deemed Meirchik's arrest and incarceration illegal for another reason. She was imprisoned and ordered held until the end of judicial proceedings before the prosecution presented any evidence against her. The next hearing is scheduled for June 5 at the Kfar Saba Magistrates Court. LET ISRAEL'S AMBASSADOR AND CONSULS KNOW HOW YOU FEEL Ambassador Sallai Meridor
Consul General Asaf Shariv
Consulate General of Israel to the Southeast
Consulate General of Israel to New England
Consulate General of Israel to the Midwest
Consulate General of Israel to the Southwest
Consulate General of Israel in Los Angeles
Consulate General of Israel –– Miami
Consulate General of Israel in Philadelphia
Contact Lee Caplan at leescaplan@yahoo.com |
|
NEWS FROM THE GUSH
Posted by Sasha F., June 2, 2008. |
|
The letter comes from Israel Danziger, Head of Operations at Mishmeret Yesha (Guardians of Yesha, Yesha the acronym for Samaria, Judea and Gaza); and the article is the latest update from Mishmeret Yesha, which provides rapid response teams to safeguard Israelis. MISHMERET YESHA is a grassroots activist umbrella organization who protects, further and improves the lives of Jews in Israel since 1988. The organizations main focus has been in the areas of security, medical, land redemption and educational projects. Mishmeret Yesha is appealing to the Jewish communities worldwide to stand by their brave Jewish brethren in Yesha and enable them to hold the front lines of Israel at its most perilous juncture in Israel's existence and help prevent the next tragedy before it happens. The final item is an article by Helen Freedman of AFSI explaining "Why Israel Needs Rapid Response Teams." Americans For a Safe Israel/AFSI is a pro-active pro-Israel advocacy group. AFSI may be contacted by mail at 1623 Third Ave., Suite 205, New York, N.Y. 10128 (Tel: 212-828-2424; Fax: 212-828-1717); by email at afsi@rcn.com; or by accessing its website: www.afsi.org. Helen Freedman was for many years AFSI's Executive Director. Mishmeret Yesha is particularly important now that the Olmert Government is disarming individual "settlers" using many pretenses while. at the same time, withdrawing IDF troops from several areas targetted by hostile Arabs. In the wake of the terrorist shooting at Jerusalem's Mercaz Harav Yeshiva on March 6, a leading rabbi and high-ranking IDF officer called on all post-high school educational institutions to train rapid response teams capable of defending against future attacks. Israel Danziger, head of operations at Mishmeret Yesha, has been asked to put together a general plan for educational institutions that would improve their preparedness to act appropriately in the first few minutes of terrorist infiltration. To understand why Mishmeret Yesha is needed, take a look at http://www.orgreality.com/yesha/videos.php?id=8. |
|
Sha'vua Tov, Hope all is well for everyone. I am sorry this is being sent out so late, we had great difficulty with our E-mail service this past week not allowing us to send anything out. So much is happening daily that this past update is outdated. As the Olmert/Bush circus enters its final days they are acting like an injured animal, cornered, lashing out in all directions in a last attempt to survive. Their desperation is our despair as we hold the frontlines anticipating, calculating and countering the daily changes enacted on the ground to complete a "deal" by the end of the year. Just as Yehoshua when entering the Land of Israel, leading the nation, Hashems first commandment was, bring an offering of the first fuits, even though the nation had not set foot in the Land before and had not planted those fruits. Because of Hashems convenant with Abraham, Issac and Jacob the continuity of that promise made the Land of Israel and everything that was ever planted there, ours, forever. Your help is part of that continuity and that is what this is all about. Sha'vua Tov,
MISHMERET YESHA
IYAR 5768/May 2008 QUARTERLY UPDATE –– LAG BA'OMER SPRING 2008 It is now 12:45 Thursday nite, Lag Ba'omer 5768. I returned a short while ago from a long day in the Shomron. This day began with a phone update from Rabbi Hager-Lau who on Wednesday met with the IDF Commander of the Central Command, General Gadi Shamni, about the snowballing deteriorating security situation, specifically the opening of the major crossings along Route 60 throughout Yehuda. There is a déjà-vu Kissufim, Gush Katif-type situation, developing very quickly along the only road that travels North/South through Yehuda, joining Jerusalem with Bersheva. These four major crossings-Yatta, Sheiuch, Sair and Chalchul, hold the key to all major Jewish traffic in Yehuda. These junctions are about to become major nightmares for our people as the IDF continues full steam to disengage from the communities beyond the wall. At the same time, the PA has been allowed to re-introduce fully armed Arab soldiers into the B+ Villages of Tekua and Seir in Eastern Gush Etzion. The Tekua T junction controls the traffic to eight communities in the Eastern Gush. I personally travel on this road several times a week and have seen the transfer of these forces twice in the last week. Make no mistake about it, the deadly cancer of an Arab army is growing daily in the heart of our country. By ten o'clock we had a meeting in Barkan, Shomron, with the new Mayor of the Shomron region, Gershon Masika, and his new activist staff. By the way, did you know the Shomron municipality, the largest in the country, covers 11% of the land mass of today's Israel between the Mediteranean and the Jordan river? Definitely something to think about. We visited a number of outposts that have been phoning over the last week asking for help to deal with the deteriorating security situation. They have been attacked in every way possible in the last weeks, from vandalism and theft to outright assaults by gunfire all hours of the night. We finished the day at the outpost of Yad Yair in Western Binyamin. Does the outpost named Yad Yair ring a bell? Apparently Condoleeza Rice knows where this outpost is and felt it is important enough to have asked the government of Israel to remove it during her recent visit here. Yad Yair was to become a small community that was established after the Oslo accords on a winding slope on the old Dolev-Bet-El road after the ambush/murder of Yair Mendelsohn, a father of three, while driving from Dolev to Bet-El on a Saturday night 17 years ago. After the murder, an initial attempt was made to settle the hill where the attack took place. To prevent any large civilian presence and yet provide basic security at a strategic point on an important road, the IDF set up a small base above the 12 ft stone erected on the spot where Yair Mendelsohn was murdered. Eventualy a small synagogue was built to serve the soldiers and the civilians who drove by and visited and prayed, perpetuating Yairs name. This place was named Yad Yair ("yad" translates as a hand, but also, a goal). As security deteriorated and the city of Ramallah enveloped this area, the IDF began restricting travel on this road, finally closing it down after Sept 2000. Sensing the eventual abandonment of this area three years ago, friends and family of Yair Mendelsohn purchased nine dunams of land around the monument at a cost of $580,000.00. Although the road was closed, groups would come to study and and pray at different times of the month. During the last year as the army began reducing its presence, Yeshivat Yeshuat Mordechai from Nachliel traveled to Yad Yair, everyday, before dawn, to pray with a minyan watching the sun rise. They study there until noon, pray Mincha, and return to Nachliel for lunch. Four months ago the army, without notice, picked up and removed all IDF presence. What began as vandalism –– spraypainting, gouging out the letters of the monument and damaging of water and powerlines, progressed to cannibalism –– tearing out of the ground water, sewage and electric lines, which eventually led to arson and burning the synagogue to the ground. All that remained from Yad Yair was the 12 foot stone bearing his name. Two months before Passover the Yad Yair memorial committee asked us to build a new synagogue out of plate steel; walls, roof, windows and doors, resembling a huge safe. This we did. Six days before the holiday of Passover in an operation that went on for 48 hours using a truck with a crane, generator, high powered lighting and several armed workers, this 64 section synagogue was welded together under the nose of the Arabs of Beir-Zeit, Ramallah. Not realizing at first what was going on (all the workers wore IDF unifoms and had wooden M-16s) the Arabs over the first days of Passover finally woke up, organizing a massive demonstration from Beir-Zeit University on Chol Hamoed. The building of the synagogue and the violent Arab response served as a catalyst to finally wake up the Jews of Western Binyamin. Since that day, the Jews of that area, specifically Yeshivat Yeshuat Mordechai, have maintained a permanent presence around the clock, with classes, minyanim and families. Today, Erev Lag Ba'omer, closes 30 days of permanent presence at Yad Yair. Every spot we visited requires different levels of assistance. All of them are in need of high powered communications systems like the type we are now putting in Yitzhar, covering the central commmunity and all their surrounding hilltops. They require state-of-the-art night vision goggles, and many other important items to help secure our land. This is the part we need to turn to you. We have just completed the revamping and equipping of the Rapid Response Teams of the communities of Kochav Hashacher –– Binyamin, Beit Chagai-Har Chevron, Rotem-Jordan Valley, Ariel University-Shomron, Tekoah-Eastern Gush. We have also completed the equipping and began the training program of Rabbi Steinzaltz Yeshivat Hesder-Tekoah. By the time I finished writing this update it was past two o'clock in the morning. Most of what I have written about and seen in the last few days is survival related to the very life of this country and cover more issues then most people deal with in a lifetime. When I stopped for a moment to feel the silence of the early morning and the beautiful cool air blowing in the wind of Gush Etzion, I heard in the distance the singing and shouting of children in the dark. Having forgotten for a moment that it was Lag B'omer, I suddenly realized the sounds were children dancing and singing around bonfires on all the hills around the Gush. For a few seconds I reflected on how wonderful it is that kids of all ages can and do walk around all hours of the night (my own kids came home at four) without fear in their own country and celebrate Lag B'omer as we did in Bibical Israel. This is no small thing. Where in the world today or at any time could Jewish children feel free to walk around at all hours of the night without fear? Once again, this was a powerful reminder of how important it is to put today's situation in perspective. Not in context of the last 60 years, but in the perspective of the last 3,500 years. Throughout history the Jews have been the scourge of wherever they have been and gouged out of every corner of the earth. Wherever they were, they simply were no more. So, yes, as it is written "there is reward for your endeavor. " "Why Israel Needs Rapid Response Teams."
Israel is reputed to have one of the best armies in the world. The army, navy, and air force of the IDF have been victorious over and over again in so many miraculous defensive wars. Noting that, one would ask why it is necessary for Israel to have rapid response teams made up of members of the individual communities in which they live. The answer is supplied by an IDF spokesperson, Rabbi Moshe Hager-Lau, a reserve colonel who serves as assistant division commander for reserve forces in Judea and Samaria. He says, "It takes at least ten minutes for the IDF to respond when an infiltration incident occurs. An armed terrorist can kill a whole lot of people in ten minutes." What happens in the time it takes for the IDF to appear on the scene of a terrorist attack? If the community is lucky, and the men have been trained by Mishmeret Yesha's crack trainers, the rapid response team drawn from the residents of the community will identify the terrorists and subdue them. In situations where such teams don't exist, horrific murders have taken place. It has been my privilege to enlist the services of Israel Danziger as a tour guide for the Chizuk (encouragement) missions conducted semi-annually by Americans For a Safe Israel (AFSI). I and the members of the group are continuously amazed at the depth of Danziger's knowledge about the land of Israel. Wherever we travel, he knows the hills, the communities, the farms, the vineyards, the people, and the trees. Mishmeret Yesha and their groups have planted thousands of these trees and vineyards. It is his conviction that this is one way of holding onto the land of Israel. We've stopped at some of the rocky hillside areas that Danziger has found for us, and with rudimentary tools, we've dug away at the hard soil, planting our saplings. We've also admired the huge fields of vineyards planted by Mishmeret Yesha. We look forward to drinking the wine from those grapes, and seeing it exported to the U.S. Danziger has also taken us to the "factory" in Beth-El where he personally has designed the bullet-proof vests that are provided to the reservists called to active duty. His expert workers –– six work full-time –– carefully cut out the patterns and sew up the vests which contain pockets and belts and loops of all kinds, anticipating the needs of the soldiers. Of course, there is a sleeve for the bullet-proof shield. When Danziger took us to the target practice field where the 12 man team from Yitzhar was being trained, I was moved to tears. Here were Jews practicing with the M-16 rifles supplied by the IDF, so that they could protect the lives of their families and friends. Their instructors were driving them hard, and they were training hard. Life and death matters were at hand, and they were taking it all very seriously. The MIshmeret Yesha training is primarily for the threatened communities in Judea, Samaria, Hebron hills, and the former Gush Katif. Here there are communities that are small and largely unprotected by the IDF. Over 100 settlements like Shavei Shomron, Kfar Tapuach, Adei Ad, Shvut Rahel, Bat Ayin, Yitzhar, Itamar, Otniel, Esh Kodesh, Sde Boaz and more, are forced to deal with the constant threats from Arab terrorism that confront them daily. Today, as a result of terrorist infiltrations into yeshivas throughout Israel, such as the Mekor Haim high-school yeshiva in Kibbutz Kfar Etzion, in Atzmona (before it was destroyed), in Otniel, and at Jerusalem's Mercaz Harav Yeshiva on March 6, 2008, where eight students were murdered and nine were seriously wounded, Mishmeret Yesha has been called upon to train rapid response teams in the schools. The organization is ready to do this, but there is one stipulation. There cannot be any Arabs working in the schools –– or for that matter in any of the communities –– in which training will be supplied. There is the belief that Arabs will either participate in terrorist attacks themselves, as in the case of the Arab driver who worked for the Jerusalem Yeshiva, or they will supply information to others, thereby enabling successful attacks. Another outgrowth of the success of Mishmeret Yesha is a plan to arm young men who have completed their army work with M-16's and handguns in order to neutralize terrorists who infiltrate urban facilities. This would be in addition to the guards who are typically posted at all urban public buildings and businesses. My question to Israel Danziger is, "Who pays for all of this?" How can enough money possibly be raised to cover the expenses of the training, the vests, the night vision scopes, the communications equipment, the tree plantings, and all the many activities in which the organization is engaged? It costs $18,000 a year just to train one 12 man team. Mishmeret Yesha now trains 30 teams, at a cost of over half a million dollars. That doesn't include all the other costs, and the demand for more training, more equipment, is increasing. Organizations like Friends of the IDF do NOT contribute to the rapid response program of Mishmeret Yesha, and neither does the IDF, except to supply the M-16's for training. At present, the burden of payment is on the shoulders of the organization. Anyone wishing to share in this burden is encouraged to do so. Send your tax-deductible contribution, to: Mishmeret Yesha 1412 Avenue M, Suite 2363, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11230. Those wishing to contact Israel Danziger directly can reach him by email at: guards24@zahav.net.il or by cell phone: 011-972-52-468-9991. In Canada contact israelkaplan@yahoo.com, Toronto Zionist Council, cell phone 416 824 2858. Contact Sasha F. at alex@fliegler.net |
|
ISRAEL NEEDS TO ASSERT HERSELF!
Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, June 2, 2008. |
|
[Editor's Note: Mr. Uniglicht makes an excellent point: "Again, the outside world will throw fits, declare Israel to be a pariah state, the useless United Nations will spew more venom, but it will all pass." If the media and the "world" reacts at maximum decibel level whatever Israel does, then they won't react any differently whether Israel injures a single person or eliminates a large number of terrorists and their eager-to-kill extended families.] |
|
The New York Times recently blasted Israel in a front page article for not allowing seven Palestinian winners of prestigious Fulbright scholarships to exit Gaza, thus avail themselves of wonderful educational opportunities in the United States. This terrible public relations gaffe must be rectified immediately. Who on earth embraced such a counterproductive policy?!? The last thing Israel needs is more bad publicity surrounding her justifiable attempts to force Hamas to put a halt to those Jew-despising missile launchers destroying the lives of Jewish citizens in Sderot and neighboring venues. Of course those Fulbright students should have been allowed to leave! Any politician who begs to differ with that opinion needs a check up from the neck up. The problem is, when Israel's restrictive policy on Gaza residents goes on and on with little or no success, with Hamas still in charge, with Israel's world image taking continuous hits, over time there are bound to be mistakes made by the Israeli government that make the Jewish homeland look even worse. Enough! Let the students leave. Then invade Gaza, smash each and every missile launcher, round up or put to sleep all those Hamas terrorists who refuse to let Israel live in peace, in effect retake Gaza, a strategically located strip of land that should never have been abandoned in the first place! What's that? Is this madness? Absolutely not! Much of the world already, to say the least, has no love for Israel. Why would it, Israel has no oil reserves! So what if she flexes some muscle? Will the world hate Israel more? Perceived occupations or other policies interpreted to be inhumane that continue indefinitely are costly in terms of economics and image. Furthermore, those costs are directly proportional to the duration of those policies. The longer they last, the more likely there will be a faux pas that exponentially magnifies the negative image a disliked nation like Israel must endure. By the way, if Israel forthwith declares Gaza to be sovereign Israeli territory, declares all Arab residents to in effect be tenants or residents, not Israeli citizens, mandates they swear allegiance to the State of Israel or exit, no further perceptions of occupation will manifest as most of the Arabs will leave, with or without help. Again, the outside world will throw fits, declare Israel to be a pariah state, the useless United Nations will spew more venom, but it will all pass. The same strategy can apply to Judea and Samaria. The tougher Israel acts now, the less tsuris she will bear in the future. Furthermore, what Middle East regime would want to mess with a feisty state perceived to 'shoot from the hip'? Would the Persian loudmouth AhMADinejad call Israel a 'stinking corpse' if he believed she would react by making him one? A tiny state like Israel with way more enemies than friends has every right to do what it takes to preserve her existence, heritage, and quality of life. She allowed herself to lose 80% of erstwhile Palestine, promised to her in the Balfour Declaration, bizarrely without protest. Israel needs an attitude adjustment now! When you live in the jungle, you better kick some butt every once in a while unless you enjoy being pushed around and disrespected. Why not tell the Hashemite autocrat Abdullah that he's squatting on your property, read him the riot act, demand that he absorb those so-called Palestinians or else! It sure would be nice to expand Israel fivefold! Posturing makes sense when the threat is believable. Might Abdullah consider it wiser welcoming home his wayward brethren rather than feel the wrath of the Israeli air force swarming over Amman? An Israeli state perceived to be on the war path is not such a bad idea. Furthermore, the very act of allowing those seven brilliant students to leave Gaza would demonstrate Israel's compassionate side, something she could point to for the sake of a confused world. Treat Israel with respect and nice things happen should be Israel's motto! 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 |
|
ISLAM IS A SYSTEM –– SO WHAT HAPPENS TO A COUNTRY THAT MUSLIMS INHABIT AS ISLAM EXPANDS
Posted by Andras Bereny, June 2, 2008. |
|
This essay was
adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book:
|
|
Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components. Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called "religious rights." When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to "the reasonable" Muslim demands for their "religious rights," they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007). As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given
country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a
threat to anyone.
In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in
proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for
the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby
securing food preparation jobs for Muslims.
They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves –– along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law.
The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris –– car-burnings).
Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam –– Mohammed cartoons).
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide),
use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
100% will usher in the peace of "Dar-es-Salaam" –– the Islamic House of Peace –– there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:
Of course, that's not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons. "Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel. It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate. Andras Bereny lives in Kfar Tapuach in the Shomron. Contact him at bereny@tin.it |
|
AHSAN SYED'S ARTICLE IN PALO ALTO DAILY NEWS DISTORTS HISTORY
Posted by David Meir-Levi, June 2, 2008. |
|
Ahsan Syed's letter, "the Middle East," in today's Palo Alto Daily (June 2, 2008) utterly mangles history and logic. Where in the world did he come up with $100,000,000,000 of American aid to Israel? American aid to Israel did not begin until after 1967, and it reached its current level of c. $3,000,000,000 only in the past few years. Is he throwing numbers around for effect? And "...(Israel was)..built on the blood and property of Palestinians": sounds like he has been watching too much al-Jazeera TV. Israel was built on legally acquired land, most of which was uninhabited and deemed uninhabitable. By irrigating desert and draining swamp, Zionist pioneers created arable land and energized a moribund Ottoman economy such that hundreds of thousands of Arabs in-migrated to the region. Most of the people whom we today mistakenly call "Palestinians" are descendents of migrant Arab settlers who found work and medical care there only because of the Zionist endeavor. And then there is: "...the unjust policy of the U.S. is the reason the region has become so dangerous." I guess he never read about the endless Muslim-vs.-Muslim wars that racked the region for almost a millennium. And he missed the American war against the Barbary pirates in the late 18th and early 19th centuries to stop their plunder and piracy and kidnapping and enslavement of American sailors. And there is not space here to list the regional wars such as Saud-vs.-Hashemite, or PLO-vs.-Lebanon, or Hezbollah-vs.-Lebanon, or Syria-vs.-Lebanon, or Syria-vs.-Jordan, or Egypt-vs.-Yemen –– as though any of these could rationally be related to US policy in the region. Of considerable interest is Mr. Syed's assertion that leading American hi-tech corporations could have built their R&D sites in Timbuktu. I guess he thinks that he is smarter and knows more than the CEOs of these companies. How foolish of them to choose Israel, which has the highest per capita ratio of PhD's in the world and world-class scientific institutions at the Technion and Weizmann Institute; when they could have saved so much money and paid lower wages to the largely illiterate peasantry of Timbuktu. Too bad they didn't think to get Mr. Syed's advice on this issue. But worst of all: "...the U.S. giving Israel WMD for free..." I guess he just made that one up. Israel built its atomic reactor with French assistance in the 1950s and '60s. To what American gift is he referring? David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com |
|
HOW THE AMERICAN MEDIA AND NATIONAL MUSLIM POLITICAL ORGANIZATION SUPPORT TERRORISM, MURDER AND GENOCIDE
Posted by Marc Samberg, June 2, 2008. |
|
This was written by Herb Denenberg, a former Pennsylvania insurance
commissioner and professor at the Wharton School. He is a longtime
Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. He is also a member of
the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences. His
column appears daily in The Bulletin (Philadelphia). You can
reach him at advocate@thebulletin.us. The article is archived at |
|
When you don't recognize evil, denounce evil, resist evil, fight evil, you become dangerously close to being evil. That is the unfortunate situation where we find many important players in American society, including the mainstream media and the major national Muslim political groups. This does not bode well for America's ability to fight and win the war against Islamo-fascist terrorism that now threatens the survival of the free world. That's so because of the important role played by the mainstream media in shaping public opinion and public policy and because the essential role that the majority of Muslims must play in bringing the minority of the extremists within their ranks under control. You don't see much discussion of this in the mainstream media as those that control it simply do not see the evil of terrorism and Islamo-fascism, as they should and as any rational observer does. This sorry state of affairs was made crystal clear in an article by Steven Emerson, one of the nation's leading experts on international terrorism and national security. The article appears in the publication Counter Terrorism: The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security International (Summer 2008). The key question Mr. Emerson asks is in the title of the article, "Who Will Stand Against Terrorism?" He starts by painting a grim picture of the nature of our terrorist enemies and their leading sympathizers. First, he recalls the attack of terrorists at the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva in Jerusalem in which eight young students were gunned down in cold blood. Thousands of Palestinians take to the streets to celebrate this mass murder of innocent children. Their government encourages them to do so. Mr. Emerson asks, "How toxic is a society when the governing party suggests celebrating a massacre of teenage boys?" Indeed, the only answer is that it is toxic beyond measure and beyond imagination, representing a new low in a degenerate and uncivilized society. At the same time, this insane fanaticism in the service of death and destruction represent a new and unique threat to the survival of Western values and Western civilization. Then Mr. Emerson notes that the brutality of the massacre "exposes some ugly truths about the blood lust that has been fostered by leaders in Palestinian society and the unwillingness of most American Muslim political organizations and the mainstream media to confront it." When major groups in our society are unwilling to confront our mortal enemies abroad, we should understand that we have a massive amount of work to be done to right our own ship and those who sail on it. Mr. Emerson then uses the case of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which has been accused of raising money to support Hamas terrorism. He notes that despite the convincing evidence to support the accusations, the major Muslim political organizations met these accusations with silence. Some defenders of the Holy Land Foundation went beyond silence and argued that it was only trying to help needy Palestinians. When they go beyond silence, defenders or these organizations that support terrorist groups also try to make a moral equivalence between bloodthirsty terrorism and self-defense. Mr. Emerson denounces any suggestion of moral equivalence: "Every life lost is a tragedy. But to pretend there's a moral equivalence between the attacks that set out to kill innocents versus those in which civilian are caught in the crossfire is a cruel joke that serves only to perpetuate the violence and keep any hope of peace a distant fantasy. In its rocket barrages and in the yeshiva attack, civilians are the target." International law condemns terrorism, but it recognizes that in self-defense civilians may be killed and no nation is required to defend itself only if it can avoid all civilian casualties in doing so. Any such requirement of zero-civilian casualties when conducting self-defense would be the denial of the universal and inherent right of self-defense. Consider the case of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Evidence at the Holy Land Foundation trial exposed CAIR as part of a "Palestinian Committee" that was formed to advance the agenda of the terrorist organization Hamas. Hamas' charter calls for the elimination of Israel. Mr. Emerson concludes, "When American Muslim organizations refuse to condemn Hamas, they sign on to a charter that sees violence as the only 'solution' to the conflict." The Muslim organizations seem to be blind to terrorist attacks, and so is the mainstream media. For example, Mr. Emerson cites the case of the New York Times, which sets the direction of much of the mainstream media. In reporting on the Yeshiva massacre, it used the word "gunman" four times (not including the headline) and used the word "terrorist" only when quoting an Israeli official. The Washington Post, another leader of the mainstream media, described the terrorists carrying out the murder at the yeshiva as the work of a "gunman," not a terrorist. The mainstream media seem intent on euphemizing, sanitizing and legitimizing terrorism by calling it by other, more acceptable names. The acceptance of this bloodthirsty genocidal culture goes far beyond semantics and terminology. It is virtually total acceptance. For example, the major Muslim political organizations, such as CAIR, do not condemn terrorist's organizations, including Hamas, nor do they even speak out against the incitement to murder and genocide spewed out by the Palestinian media, which teaches even toddlers to strive for "martyrdom" via suicide bombing and other forms of mass murder. Mr. Emerson gives this example: "Hamas-controlled television has introduced a series of death-glorifying, bloodthirsty children's characters on 'Tomorrow's Pioneers.' They include Farfour, a Mickey Mouse look-alike that CNN described as dancing 'with an imaginary gun in his gloved hands and encouraging kids to drink milk, study hard –– and engage in violent acts of "resistance" against their Israeli neighbors and America.'" Farfour has since been martyred, but there was another character to take its place to incite even children to commit murder and other crimes against Israel and America. Mr. Emerson concludes, "Showcasing these inducements of hate and death, the duplicity of groups like CAIR in standing by Hamas, often brings back accusations of bigotry. And the death toll climbs. An Israeli was injured by yet another rocket attack the other night. Who will demand it all stop?" Mr. Emerson doesn't answer the last question, but I will. It will end when the New York Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Washington Post and the other members of the mainstream media finally start to give the public an honest picture of what's going on in the Middle East. That might start with their calling terrorists by their right name and not using euphemisms such as "gunman" and "militant." It can also start with media and public pressure on CAIR and the other national Muslim political organizations to stop defending and excusing terrorist organizations such as Hamas and to start defending and supporting America. This insane culture often focuses its murderous and genocidal intent on Israel. But Israel is only the canary in the mine. History shows that groups like the Islamo-fascist terrorists, such as the Nazis and Communists, are not satisfied with subjugating or exterminating one group or another; they always have grander ambitions. Whatever their rhetoric of the moment, however they may state limited objectives now, one of their ultimate targets is the U.S. We'd better recognize that grim reality and act accordingly. Contact Marc Samberg at marcsamberg@yahoo.com |
|
LIVING IN A HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT
Posted by Israel Academia Monitor, June 2, 2008. |
|
This was written by Shalom Lappin of King's College, London
and it appeared May 30
|
|
In their advice [pdf] to the Stop the Boycott campaign on the legal status of the UCU boycott motion (subsequently adopted by the UCU conference on May 28, 2008), Michael Beloff QC and Pushpinder Saini QC of Blackstone Chambers, London, refer to the provisions of the Race Relations Amendment Act 2003 against the creation of a hostile environment. This section of the Act defines harassment as follows: Harassment The principle that the Act formulates is uncontroversial across a broad spectrum of opinion within the anti-racist consensus. People have the right to live and work in an environment in which they are not subjected to racial abuse, where such behaviour consists in expressing hostility based on race, national origin, or ethnic background (and, it should be added, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, although these are not enumerated in the Act). But while the principle is clear and commendable, its application raises serious problems of interpretation. Specifically, when is an action an instance of racist harassment, as opposed to a legitimate, if offensive, exercise of free speech? It is difficult, if not impossible, to construct non-defeasible criteria for making this distinction in entirely general terms. There seems to be no alternative to considering particular cases on their merits in order to develop paradigms of each kind, as the basis for distinguishing classes of actions which can reasonably be construed as generating a hostile environment from those which cannot. For purposes of concreteness, let's situate the discussion in the context of university life. Assume that a lecturer in social psychology gives a talk in which he/she purports to show that general human intelligence is largely determined by heritable racial or gender properties. This view is offensive, and it has been shown to be unsupported by serious genetic evidence. However, it is very doubtful that we can use the notion of a hostile environment here to prevent the lecturer from presenting his/her arguments, such as they are. The reasonable response is a robust critique of the empirical mistakes and errors in reasoning that infect his/her claims. By contrast, if someone presents a paper describing the members of an entire racial or ethnic group as inferior, criminal, deviant, etc., then there are good grounds for seeing this as racial abuse. What about the boycott of Israeli academics? If an individual endorses the proposal for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions, then he/she expresses a view which is misguided and, to many of us, deeply unpleasant. This does not suffice to place it in the category of harassment. However, if someone denies access to academic forums to Israelis simply because they live and work in Israel, or have Israeli citizenship, then they are not only generating a hostile environment. They are engaging in racist (in the extended sense of nationality-based) discrimination. It is worth recalling a relevant incident in this context. In 2002 Mona Baker, then a lecturer in translation studies at UMIST, dismissed two Israelis from editorial boards of journals which she owns and publishes, because of her objections to Israeli Government policies in the occupied Palestinian territories. This was an act of blatant discrimination. On December 16 the Guardian published a letter by five former presidents of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain (LAGB) objecting to UMIST's investigation into Baker's actions and defending her right to 'engage in political' action outside the University as an issue for [her] 'own individual judgment'. A colleague, Jonathan Ginzburg, and I published a reply the following day in which we pointed out that we are British-Israeli linguists teaching at a UK university. We asked if the authors of the letter would also endorse the right of boycott supporters to exclude us from academic activities in Britain. We received no reply to this question from the people who wrote the letter, or from our other colleagues who supported the boycott. Shortly after this exchange another Israeli linguist teaching in the UK approached the serving president of the LAGB and asked that the Association officially distance itself from the original Guardian letter. This request was refused, and the president would not respond to further correspondence on the issue. As a result of these and related events, I and a number of other Israeli linguists in Britain experienced a deep break with the LAGB and much of the field in Britain that it represents. We were particularly struck by the fact that, while many of our colleagues privately expressed opposition or indifference to the boycott campaign, virtually none of them took a public stand against the fact that five former presidents of the LAGB spoke in their name, defending Mona Baker's right to discriminate against Israeli linguists. This would seem to be a clear case of a hostile environment. While the letter defending Mona Baker's right to dismiss Israelis from her editorial boards is obviously protected as free speech, its effect was to offer legitimation to an act of discrimination from some of the most senior people in the field, who had occupied leadership positions in its official professional association. The fact that the then president of the LAGB rejected an appeal to issue a statement indicating that the letter did not express the Association's policy permitted the authors' claim to 'speak for a large body of opinion' in the field of linguistics to stand unopposed. The relative silence of the membership gave this assertion additional credibility. What began as an expression of opinion by a group of senior linguists quickly became an ugly exercise in embarrassed silence and collaboration that alienated those of us on the receiving end from active involvement with large parts of our own field. The real damage caused by events of this kind is their corrosive impact on the normal course of academic life. If many of our colleagues are prepared to accept a boycott of Israeli academics living in Israel and they are not willing to rule out exclusion of Israeli academics working in the UK, then how can we trust decisions on research grants, promotion, journal articles, etc? How can we interact freely with colleagues who have publicly endorsed the principle that acts of discrimination against Israeli academics are a matter for a person's 'own individual judgment'? The recent boycott motion adopted by the UCU calls, inter alia, for its members to 'consider the moral and political implications of educational links with Israeli institutions, and to discuss the occupation with individuals and institutions concerned, including Israeli colleagues with whom they are collaborating'. This recommendation is little more than an invitation to apply a boycott to Israelis, and possibly others to whom the sponsors of the motion object, in a form to be left to the discretion of the members. It certainly makes no effort to rule out Mona Baker's implementation of the boycott, nor Andrew Wilkie's decision in 2003 to reject a PhD applicant from Tel Aviv University to his medical laboratory in Oxford because the applicant was an Israeli. This motion is, then, an action that will, regardless of intent, reinforce an already hostile environment. Throughout the boycott controversy of the past six years attention has focused on the UCU, which has served as the primary engine of the campaign. University administrators have, for the most part, stayed clear of the discussion by issuing brief, antiseptic statements opposing academic boycotts as incompatible with the free exchange of ideas. In this way they have skilfully avoided engaging with the difficult issue of identifying and dealing with the hostile environment that the overheated debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has produced on their campuses. Another relevant incident comes to mind. Throughout the mid- and late 1990s a number of radical Islamicist groups were active at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. One of these groups distributed incendiary propaganda against Jews, feminists, Hindus, and gays. In 1996 the administration granted it use of the main lecture hall for several meetings that included lavish praise for the suicide bombings in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv that killed 49 Israelis between February and March of that year. A small group of Jewish students, all of them women, supported by one female Hindu student and a gay male student, organized a protest demonstration outside one of these meetings. They were physically intimidated by some of the Islamicist activists, and the police were summoned to protect them.. The morning after this event I met with the Principal and the Secretary of the College to express my deep concern that the administration was handing over use of its facilities to extremists promoting bigotry and terrorism. The Principal informed me that while the Islamicist group was indeed 'cranky', he was reluctant to turn them into martyrs by denying them a presence on campus. A proposal for banning the group was raised in the SOAS Student Union, and it was also debated in the Faculty Council. It was defeated in both forums. Eventually, after negative press coverage, the administration quietly excluded the group from use of campus facilities on procedural grounds, carefully avoiding issues of principle. Variants of this pattern have since recurred on other campuses in the UK on a regular basis. The evasion practised by many university administrators in the face of the racist incitement of extremists who enjoy a high measure of political indulgence among arbiters of 'progressive opinion' is an expression of the deep moral cowardice that afflicts not a small part of academic life in Britain. It should now be abundantly clear (if it wasn't before) that returning to plead the case against the boycott before the UCU on a yearly basis, in front of a cynical and dishonest executive and a largely indifferent membership, is an exercise in futility that only serves to intensify the satisfaction of the boycotters. The Union is an abject failure as an instrument of collective bargaining and industrial democracy. It is a disgrace as an organization that purports to defend its members against discrimination, given that it has allowed itself to become a leading instrument of harassment. Ultimately, the vice-Chancellors and senior administrators of Britain's universities are charged with the responsibility of insuring that their institutions implement the Race Relations Amendment Act. It is to them that we should direct the demand that all members of the UK academic community are insured an environment free of racist exclusion, silent individual boycotts, or incitement to violence. If they are not able to provide such an environment, then it may be time to seek it elsewhere. Contact Israel Academia Monitor by email at e-mail@israel-academia-monitor.com |
|
REDISCOVERING THE WILL TO WIN
Posted by Dave Nathan, June 2, 2008. |
|
This was written by Jonathan Tobin
and it appeared in Jewish World Review
|
|
Sharansky reminds us democracies can't defend themselves without 'identity' |Some 3 1/2 years ago, former Prisoner of Zion and Israeli cabinet minister Natan Sharansky was George W. Bush's favorite author. Sharansky earned an unexpected boost when the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. invited him and co-author Ron Dermer to the White House and told the world that everyone should read their book, The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny & Terror. While this was not the equivalent of an invitation to Oprah Winfrey's guest couch, Sharansky's tome did make it onto The New York Times bestseller list. After the easy overthrow of Saddam Hussein by U.S. troops a year earlier and the post-Sept. 11 spirit of rolling back the tide of Islamist tyranny, optimism seemed on the upswing. But that was a long time ago. DISCREDITED CAUSE The war in Iraq, now in its sixth year, is, whether fairly or not, now seen as a quagmire in which America is stuck because of the misguided beliefs of those who foolishly thought they could plant democratic values abroad. The insurgency in Iraq, as well as the election victory of the Palestinian terrorist Hamas movement in 2006 (despite Bush's praise, Sharansky had criticized Bush's reliance on elections as an indicator of democracy), has thoroughly discredited the notion that we could spread democracy to the rest of the world in the minds of most Americans. Undaunted by the drastic shift in the public mood, Sharansky, who has given up politics and now writes from a perch at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, is back with yet another book that aims to persuade the West to keep fighting for its ideals. Having seen the progress democracy's enemies have made, Sharansky believes that one element has given strength to the Islamists, while at the same time undermining the West's determination: identity.
In Defending Identity, which was co-written by Shira Wolosky Weiss and edited by Dermer, Sharansky points out that while a universalist appeal to individualism rings true to us, Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah have spent the last several years illustrating that a group identity that transcends economics or the value of life itself is a lethal foe of democracy. At the same time as this rise of deadly Islamic extremism, Western intellectuals have increasingly come to see religion and nationalism as antithetical to freedom. The problem is that, if we make the mistake of seeing them as being a primitive poison that is itself the cause of violence, the West will be robbing itself of the tools with which we can defend our values. Identity can be, Sharansky argues, a "force for good," not merely an ideology of evil. "Strong identities are as valuable to a well-functioning society as they are to ... well-functioning individuals." More to the point, "without identity, a democracy becomes incapable of defending the values it holds most dear." The current situation in Europe, where democracies seem at times to be unwilling or unable to stand up against Islamist cultural and political forces, illustrates this all too well. The collapse of ideas like colonialism, that were once associated with European empires, has allowed "post-identity" thinking to trash national feelings, as well as faith. But rather than this rejection of Europe's cultural norms helping its democratic culture to prosper, it has rendered it defenseless in the face of aggressive and self-confident Muslim immigrants. This trend has led to a virtual collapse of the cause of human rights around the world. Not only are many Western intellectuals and academics now largely uninterested in bringing the benefits of liberty to places where Islamo-fascists and local authoritarians rule, many have actively allied themselves with the cause of those who want to destroy existing democracies. That is the only way to understand the willingness of so many in the West to support Palestinians, whose worldview is the complete opposite of what these liberal thinkers themselves supposedly espouse. It is, after all, the State of Israel, where the right of Jews to their own "identity" is under siege both from those who oppose any non-Muslim sovereignty in the region and Western critics, including a growing cadre of leftist Jews, who see Zionism as regressive nationalism. This is a body of thought that has gained ground in war-weary Israel, as the so-called "post-Zionists" have sought to wean the country away from its roots. Rather than seeing it as the place where one small group has found the freedom to let their ancient civilization blossom anew on their historic homeland, the post-Zionists urge Israelis to eschew such parochialism. But it is here that Sharansky, an immigrant whose background made the idea of him ever becoming prime minister an impossibility, understands the threat better than any sabra. As a dissident in the former Soviet Union, Sharansky himself bridged the gap between the movements to promote human rights for all Russians and the push for the right of Jews to emigrate. But his goals of promoting freedom for all Soviet citizens and the particular rights of Jews were not contradictory. To the Communists, the bid to extinguish individual freedom was indistinguishable from their attempt to eradicate Jewish identity. Sharansky's two causes complimented each other as the eventual victory of both proved. Similarly, today Sharansky is derided by activists in groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch because while still backing human rights causes elsewhere, he actively supports Israel's right to defend itself against terrorists, whose goal is to deny Jews freedom. Just as the West can't defend itself against Islamism by giving up a belief in the superiority of their own ideals of democracy, Israel won't survive by "giving up on Jewish identity." "There is another way," argues Sharansky. "The path to peace lies in strengthening Israel's Jewish identity, maintaining a robust Israeli democracy and encouraging our non-democratic neighbors to build free societies." THE BEST DEFENSE
Equally as important, "Defending Identity" cuts to the heart of the malaise that causes many in Europe and America to refuse to understand the threat to their freedoms that post-identity thinking represents. "A world without differences is a world that denies people their deepest attachments to history and to the future, to memory and to inheritance," writes Sharansky. Islamists claim they will win because Westerners and Jews "love life," while they "love death" because their belief in their cause is so great. The author's answer is to to assert that "the free world's shield against its enemies is its own identity, vigorously asserted ... Not all cultures are the same. Not all values are equivalent. The right to live a unique way of life is a right worth fighting for and if necessary worth dying for." The altered political climate may mean that another trip to the
bestseller list for Sharansky is highly unlikely. But this is a
message that all those who espouse the values of the democratic West
need to take to heart.
Contact Dave Nathan at DaveNathan@aol.com
|
|
WHAT HAPPENED TO SHARON?; U.S. PLANS FOR SYRIA; WHEN ISRAEL'S FATE IS IN OLMERT'S HANDS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 2, 2008. |
|
SHARON'S CURRENT CONDITION Not having heard anything about Ariel Sharon in a long time, an Internet writer, angry with him for having fought against Palestinian Arabs, wondered about his status. A news brief stated that he has remained comatose for 2 ½ years. I am angry with Sharon, too. He betrayed his people to the Palestinian Arabs. He dispossessed 10,000 Jews from Gaza and northern Samaria in a brutal and stingy way, to ruin them. He turned their thriving hot houses over to the Arabs, who looted and ruined them. He left Gaza to fall under Hamas' sway. WHAT WAS BUSH'S MOTIVE FOR IRAQ WAR? Democrats argue that Pres. Bush lied about Iraq in order to get us into war with it. If what the Democrats thought was Bush's main motive was not a motive, what was? Two told me it was to finish his father's war and punish Saddam for plotting his father's death. READER REPLIES ON WHETHER TO CALL GOD "ALLAH" "Offhand, I would find it offensive to call G-d "Allah", because it denotes a creator whose desires and teachings conform to Islam." "The Jewish concept of G-d is totally at odds with the Islam concept in countless ways." "In Judaism, G-d commands us to keep His mitzvos, study His Torah, and devote a life to spiritual growth while treating all humanity fairly and kindly. Proselytizing to the non-Jews is forbidden. Conquering, massacring other peoples, cursing them as apes and pigs, etc. is non-existent. Judaism says everyone can go to heaven if they keep the 7 Noachide mitzvos, whereas Islam (and Xtianity) condemns everyone who doesn't conform to their beliefs to hell. They also believe in a fickle god who changes his chosen people, beliefs and demands from time to time." (5/22.) Some religions liberate; others oppress. Although they define God as almighty, they define his ethics in opposite ways. The difference affects humans more significantly than the similarity. Muslims don't worship Satan, but what they take as their god's orders, other religions would consider satanic. Islam has a different set of ethics, approving of deceit and defamation. What Muslims consider as satanic is infidel self-defense against Muslim holy war. Judaism's belief that ethical behavior gains entry to heaven strikes me as an important example of tolerance for mankind to follow. NEGOTIATING THE DISMANTLING OF ISRAEL The US asked Turkey to try to get Syria and Israel to negotiate. US theory holds that if Syria has peace with Israel, it would not need Iran (IMRA, 5/17). PM Olmert said that, like earlier prime ministers, he is ready to make painful concessions in peace negotiations with Syria (IMRA, 5/21). The State Dept. equates peace treaty with peace. Treaties don't bring peace. Not with the Arabs. The Arabs violate their treaties. Syria's only causes for conflict with Israel are jihad and its desire for regional hegemony. Its conditions for peace include taking the territory that, in Syrian hands, enabled war on Israel, and in Israeli hands, keep Syria from invading. Olmert did not ask painful concessions of Syria? Why not? Why should it be up to Israel to make concessions to an aggressor tied to Iranian holy war against Israel? There is no basis to expect that a resulting treaty would satisfy Syria, inasmuch as Syria made war on Israel when it had the Golan and didn't recently because Israel has the Golan. Now that Syria's ally Hizbullah has taken over Lebanon, the forces of jihad are in the ascendant, so Syria won't turn away from Iran. Syria has Russia's armaments to draw upon. Who ever heard of voluntarily ceding parts of one's own country to an aggressor! (The Golan part of the Jewish homeland was annexed to Israel. It furnishes more than a third of its water.) JAPAN'S ARGUMENT TO RUSSIA Russia tells Israel that it is occupying territory seized in war, and it should "return" it to the Palestinian Arabs. Japan then tells Russia that it is occupying Japanese territory seized in war, and it should return it to Japan (IMRA, 5/17). If Russia argues one way to Israel and another to Japan, it is hypocritical. But Japan's argument is faulty. International law permits victims of aggression to retain territory seized from the aggressor. The condition for retention, however, is for security against a future attack. Japan is not of a mind to commit further aggression. The Arabs are still at war. The analogy fails in other ways. Israel did not take the Territories away from any country, especially not from the Palestinian Arabs, who had no country there. The legal status of the Territories then and now is the unallocated portion of the Palestine Mandate, a Mandate intended to set the Jewish people up there. The Jewish people have first claim on the Territories. (Incidentally, the Golan originally was in the Mandate.) PALESTINIAN ARAB AGRICULTURAL PRACTICE The moderate, peace-loving Palestinian Arabs "...uprooted a vineyard in Dolev this past weekend for the seventh time in 10 months. Shlomi Cohen's vineyard connects the W. Bank settlements of Neria and Nahliel, and separates the Palestinian (no, should be "Arab") villages Mazrat a-Qabliya and Dir Amar. The vineyard is on state land. In another act of recurrent vandalism, Palestinians (sic) on Friday evening torched wheat fields belonging to Yitzhar residents, for the third time in recent weeks. A neighborhood watch patrol was stoned when it came to put out the fire." (IMRA, 5/19.) If they are so moderate, why are they so destructive of others? OLMERT CABINET LIKES CEASEFIRE PROPOSAL The proposal is complicated. A key point in it is that the IDF would not mount an attack of any kind on Gaza unless the rockets from Gaza inflict a significant number of casualties. "Insignificant" numbers of Israelis in Siderot, Ashkelon, and elsewhere, as the rockets gain in range, may be murdered with impunity (IMRA, 5/19). A government that approves murder of its citizens! LEAVE JEWS' FATE TO THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT? Almost three years after having been dispossessed from Gaza, no, not by the Nazi-admiring Arabs but by the supposedly right-wing Sharon, most of the 10,000 Jews, primarily farmers, remain without permanent housing. Many still are not established on farms. Their unemployment remains three times the national average (IMRA, 5/19). Sharon acted as if out to marginalize them. National Israeli unemployment is about one and-a-half times that in the US. Children and their parents are suffering emotional trauma, too. Of course! The State has made them more or less wards of the State. Remember that the government confiscated and ruined their possessions, but charged them storage fees? Those people still are forced to pay mortgages on the houses that the government tore down. How can they afford new houses? They never got the full compensation promised, sometimes because of unfair, last-minute demands for documentation like those which European insurance companies demanded of Holocaust survivors). Nevertheless, the government managed to spend a lot of money on the dispossession. Expanding dispossession to hundreds of thousands of Jews would ruin the country. War is hell, but what Israel calls peace is hell for its own people. While the government fills seats in Jerusalem, empty lampposts beckon them. Do you think it is just name-calling to accuse the government of treason? Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear regularly in 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 |
|
FREE DANNY AND ITZIK HALAMISH, VICTIMS OF THE ISRAELI JUDICIARY'S PARTIALITY TO ARABS
Posted by Naomi Ragen, June 2, 2008. | |
|
Friends, A few months ago, some Bedouin invaded the land of an Israeli town in Gush Etzion. The security guards, including brothers Danny and Itzik Halamish, approached them and asked them to leave. In response, about twenty picked up rocks and sticks and surrounded the brothers, who fired in the air in self-defense. What happened next makes my blood boil. The Bedouin complained to the police and the brothers were arrested and sent to jail (below, the whole sad story). I think an appropriate act to celebrate Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem, would be to fax President Peres and ask for their immediate release. Please join me. President's house/office
Naomi Gemma Blech writes: "If a Fax is sent, I would suggest something brief as follows.
Even if you change this make sure it is brief, courteous and fully signed. To bombard the President's office with faxes may be more effective than phone calls. Faxes can of course be sent in Hebrew. Please circulate this as widely as possible. It is thought that faxes from overseas will have more impact. The article below is called "Two Brothers on Their Way to Jail for
Protecting Jewish Town." It is by Hillel Fendel, Senior News Editor at
Arutz-Sheva (www.israelnationalnews.com).
| |
|
(IsraelNN.com) IDF combat unit veterans Danny and Yitzchak Halamish are set to begin 7-8 month prison terms next month –– unless President Peres accepts their request for a pardon. They have been convicted of attacking Arabs who infiltrated the fields of their town –– but they claim they did not shoot at all, and that the Arabs attacked them. The story began one day in February 2004, when an Arab gang entered the fields just outside the young Jewish community of Maaleh Rechavam in eastern Gush Etzion. In accordance with accepted procedure, the local security officer –– hired by the Defense Ministry –– called two members of the local fast-response security team, Danny, 35, and his brother Yitzchak, 28, and the three went out to banish the Arabs from the fields where Jewish children play. It did not go smoothly, however. The mob of 20 Arabs attacked the Jews with rocks and even with sticks, and then surrounded them. The security officer shot at the ground in front of the Arabs, and then he and the Halamish brothers retreated. "The next thing we knew," Danny Halamish told Arutz-7, "the police came to arrest us –– after the Arabs claimed that we had attacked them!" Though the Jews filed a counter-complaint, the police later acknowledged that they never even interrogated the Arabs, Halamish said, "because of the weak claim that the Arabs had complained first..." The site is just a kilometer away from the cave in which Kobi Mandell, 13, and his friend Yosef Ishran, 14, were brutally murdered while hiking in the area in 2001. The murderers, who were apprehended just this past week, were still on the loose at the time of the Halamish incident. The Halamish brothers and the local security officer spent a few days in jail, and were soon accused and convicted of assault and battery. The security officer, who admitted that he had shot, asked for and received a pardon for "personal reasons." But the two Halamish brothers say they "have nothing to confess, since we did not shoot. But even more importantly: I have no intention of apologizing for having gone out to protect Jews. Even if I have to sit in prison for a few months, I will not say that it is wrong to do what I did. What do we have a State for, if not to protect ourselves? The State has lost its way..." Danny, married with two children, says that though his legal position is solid, "the courts have taken the strange position that because we didn't make certain claims at the right time, our conviction stands. This is unheard of. First of all, our legal claim is one that can be made at any time, and the courts are simply not following the law. But regardless of this: How can they send two upstanding citizens to jail merely because of a technicality? This is totally unjust." Police Shoot the Guns Themselves, Thus Neutralizing the Evidence The brothers say that when their weapons were taken from them, they were confident that the ballistics tests would show that they had not been fired. This would support the finding that all the bullet casings had been shot from the security officer's gun. However, the police did not check the guns; instead they fired them themselves, claiming to want to see if they were in working order. Thus, the brothers' claim that they had not shot could no longer be proven. Despite the lack of evidence against the brothers, and despite a recommendation by the probation officer that the sentence be only community service, Judge Amnon Cohen and two other judges of the Jerusalem Magistrates Court ruled that they believed the Arabs, and sentenced the brothers to seven and eight months in prison, respectively. The judges said they wanted to put them in jail to "serve as a lesson to others." The brothers' subsequent appeals to the District Court and the Supreme Court were rejected, largely because the claim about the lack of police ballistic tests should have been submitted earlier. "The justice system simply doesn't know how to deal with Arab aggression. Therefore, the easiest targets for their frustration are those on the frontline, like us." Rigged in Advance Asked how he explains these rulings, in light of the lack of evidence against him and his brother, Danny said, "For one thing, I think it was rigged in advance. The evidence and the witnesses were not really important; what really counted is what we call 'the commander's spirit' –– it's fairly clear what the authorities on top want, and the judges often go along with that. Even Ariel Sharon had to fall in line; when he was in legal trouble, he knew what he had to do in order to stay on the right side of those in charge..." Don't Know How to Deal With Arab Violence "But more significantly," Halamish continued, "is the fact that the justice system simply doesn't know how to deal with Arab aggression. Therefore, the easiest targets for their frustration are those on the frontline –– like us, in this case, and Shai Dromi, and the settlers [Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria] in general. If the legal system were to exonerate us, this would be an admission that we are doing the security job that the country is supposed to do on its own, but is failing at." Danny emphasized several times: "I have no regrets. We were called to take part in protecting Jewish lives, and we came without hesitation –– not like the policeman outside Yeshivat Merkaz HaRav who remained outside until the danger passed." Asked what aid he would like from the public, Danny said, "There are two plans. Firstly, I would like the public to know what is going on with the legal system here. Tzviya Sariel [the 18-year-old girl who was in prison for 3.5 months for refusing to cooperate with the system; she was released last week] has fired one of the first shots. She yelled, 'The Emperor has no clothes!', that is, that the system is unjust –– and her claim was proven by the fact that the system, instead of dispatching her case quickly, kept her in prison for an inordinately long time. People have to know that the legal system is not working properly." Supporters are asked to fax Pres. Peres and phone the Israeli Embassy in Washington. "Secondly," he said, "we have filed a request for a pardon from President Shimon Peres. If people will fax his office [02-5611033; from abroad, replace leading 0 with international access code and 972], and demand justice, it could have an effect." As of now, Danny and Yitzchak are scheduled to enter prison on April 10 –– though there is a possibility this date will be pushed off while their request for a pardon is processed. Attorney Sheftel's Presentation Attorney Yoram Sheftel, representing the two brothers, said in one of the appeals, "My clients were convicted amidst total disregard of the police blunder in not having performed ballistic checks on the guns... In addition, the Arab identification of the brothers was done improperly, and is not acceptable as evidence." Furthermore, Sheftel said, "there are no grounds for the judge having rejected my clients' claim that they acted with proper authority as part of their community's security team. Actions like the one they took are routine in many towns in Judea and Samaria." Sheftel then took a broader view: "Despite the terrible situation of Arab terrorism throughout Israel, and especially in Judea and Samaria, one would think –– when reading the ruling of the lower court, and especially when reading the invective-filled cross-examinations of the Danny and Yitzchak and their witnesses –– that there is no such thing as Arab terrorism in Yesha. One would further think that the [Halamish brothers], who are among the pioneers of Yesha and have no criminal background, are part of some group of bullies who attacked a serene group of shepherds for no reason at all. A false picture is painted as if we are dealing with a clash between base lawbreakers and innocent Arab shepherds who simply went out to graze their sheep in a pastoral meadow in serene Switzlerand. In fact, however, the Jews were forced to act to save their lives and prevent a situation that in the past has claimed the lives of Jews who were afraid to act the way they did." In addition to faxing Pres. Peres, supporters in the U.S. are also advised to phone the Israel Embassy in Washington (at 202-364-5500) and ask to speak to the military attache. The message, according to Gush Etzion activist Datia Yitzchaki, should be one of "outrage by Israel's abdication of military responsibility of its own soldiers, who now face jail terms solely because they helped protect Jews." Callers are also advised to say they plan to discuss the case with their Congressional representatives. Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at www.naomiragen.com, where you can subscribe to her newsletter. |
|
IN POLITICAL TRICKERY ISRAELI POLITICIANS HAVE FEW PEERS
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, June 1, 2008. |
|
Let's begin with Minister Chaim Ramon who has been Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's trial balloon floater. He's not very bright but, he follows orders. Ramon wants Olmert to "tell all", particularly about the secret talks and agreements Olmert made with Abbas, Haniya and other Muslim Arab Palestinians. Why would Ramon insist Olmert speak out now about the under-the-table deals, usually delivered by Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and President Shimon Peres with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice shouting her orders? It has frequently been predicted that Rice, the Muslim Palestinians and Arab countries wanted Olmert to commit Israel to a full withdrawal of Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights and all those parts of Jerusalem occupied and desecrated by Jordan for 19 years from 1948 to 1967 –– WITHOUT A VOTE in the Knesset or the country. This idea was that once Olmert as Prime Minister said these words, Israel would be fully committed. Rabin and Peres were also advised to do this by the Arabist State Department on the theory the Knesset wouldn't dare to vote it down –– after the fact. The Trick worked! Now Ramon, on orders from Olmert and Rice want all the secret commitments they made declared in public as irrevocable Government policy. To continue, we suddenly hear from Minister Tzachi HaNegbi, another recent Kadimite. Speaking on TV's Meet The Press on Sunday June 1st, HaNegbi spoke about coming national elections and the need for a National Unity Government. Presumably, he is referring to Likud winning and their inviting Kadima to join Likud to rule together. Strangely, Binyamin Netanyahu was asked if he would void any agreement made by Olmert with Abbas of Fatah and/or Haniya of Hamas to start a "Hudna" (temporary cease-fire) for 10 years. A "Hudna" is a false peace which allows the Muslims to rebuild their military/terrorist strength. This is what Mohammed did with the Jewish Qaraish tribe. He made a 10 year peace treaty, called the "Hudabaiyah Treaty", used "Hudna" to build up his military strength. Mohammed broke the Treaty, came back in 3 years to slaughter the men while selling the women and children into slavery. Yassir Arafat referred to the Oslo Accords as the "Hudabaiyah Treaty" the day after Oslo was signed when speaking to his Arab Muslim audiences –– meaning he would abrogate the Oslo Treaty as soon as he was strong enough. Binyamin Netanyahu was quoted as saying he would keep any agreement the Olmert government made before elections. Does that mean that Netanyahu has been a formal part of Olmert and Rice's negotiations in total secrecy? It would seem so! Is that why Ramon is floating the trial balloon to get Olmert to publically proclaim that, with his authority as Israel's Prime Minister, he declares these negotiations valid and in force? Is that why HaNegbi wants an immediate National Unity Government with Netanyahu? Another key question is: How many of the Knesset supporters of Kadima are actually in on the deal and have been prepped to do a quick vote, approving whatever Olmert proclaims? I thought Israel's politicians had reach down to their lowest possible level. But, this is a new low and qualifies as high Treason against the Jewish State and her people. As recently stated by MK Aryeh Eldad, "Life in prison or execution based upon Israel's code of laws on treason that declare giving away any Land of Israel is considered 'Treason' ". The double-cross should be brought to the attention of the Knesset, the Attorney General and every newspaper, radio and TV media out source there is in the world. It appears that C. Rice was going to give President George W. Bush his exit legacy but, things started to go wrong before they could pull of their trick. Olmert was accused of taking envelopes of cash like any two-bit dirty politician. So, with Olmert about to be tossed out of government, Rice, Bush, Olmert, Livni, Barak and Peres had to advance the schedule of the great declaration by Olmert I wonder how long Netanyahu was part of the deal and what he gets out of it besides, once again, being made Prime Minister? 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@gwinston.interaccess.com |
|
PASTOR HAGEE WAS –– AND WASN'T –– WRONG
Posted by Warren Manison, June 1, 2008. |
|
This was written by Jeff Jacoby, a columnist for The Boston
Globe. It appeared in the Globe today at
|
|
Theresienstadt was a Nazi ghetto and labor camp near Prague from which tens of thousands of Jews were deported to their deaths during World War II. Decades after the war's end, a long-hidden secret at Theresienstadt came to light: a tiny storeroom that, unbeknownst to the Gestapo, had been transformed into a synagogue. There, defying the Nazis' ban on religious worship, Jewish inmates would gather surreptitiously, a few at a time, to pour out their hearts in prayer –– an act as stirring for its courage as for its demonstration of faith. What was in their thoughts as they prayed we can only speculate. But they left some clues. On the walls of the clandestine chapel, elegantly painted in red and black, were Biblical verses and passages from the Hebrew prayer book. By now many of the words have faded away. But those that are still legible express poignantly the heartache and hope of the doomed Jews who addressed themselves to God in that small room as the Holocaust raged around them. "We implore You," said one passage taken from the daily liturgy, "turn back from Your anger and have mercy on the treasured nation that You have chosen." Pleaded another: "Despite all this, we have not forgotten Your name –– we beg You, do not forget us."
THERE HAS BEEN SOME CONTROVERSY IN RECENT DAYS over comments about God and the Holocaust made by the Rev. John Hagee, the influential evangelical pastor of San Antonio's 19,000-member Cornerstone Church. In a sermon delivered a decade ago and recently unearthed by a hostile blogger, Hagee suggested that the Holocaust was part of a divine plan, and that Hitler was a "hunter" whose persecution of the Jews was not only willed by God but foretold by the prophet Jeremiah 2,500 years ago. "Why did it happen?" Hagee asked. "Because God said, 'My top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel.' " Hagee's interpretation of scripture was undeniably grotesque and jarring, to say nothing of presumptuous in its claim to know the mind of God. But his long-forgotten sermon became news for one reason only: He had endorsed John McCain for president, and the left saw a target of opportunity. Many denounced the pastor's remarks, some doubtless hoping that the storm would neutralize political damage caused to Barack Obama by the America-damning diatribes of his longtime mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Others went even further, demonizing Hagee as an anti-Semite and smearing him, in the words of one Huffington Post contributor, as the kind of person who "celebrate[s] the Holocaust." For his part, McCain wasted no time cutting his ties to Hagee. He called the comments about Hitler "crazy and unacceptable," and repudiated the preacher's endorsement.
AS A JEW WHO BELIEVES IN GOD AND AS THE SON OF A HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR, I find Hagee's theological explanation for the extermination of 6 million Jews strained and incoherent. Auschwitz and Babi Yar were not God's handiwork. They were the creations of men and women who were endowed with free will and who chose to commit evil. Hagee's theory that God willed the murder of Europe's Jews because they didn't embrace Zionism smacks of blaming the victims –– and worse, of letting their victimizers off the hook. And yet ... And yet the belief that the Holocaust, like all calamities, is part of God's plan is hardly alien to Jewish or Christian thought. Those Jews in Theresienstadt, risking their lives to gather in prayer, surely believed that the horror surrounding them must at some level be willed by God. That is why they begged Him: "Turn back from Your anger and have mercy." As anyone even fleetingly familiar with the Hebrew Bible knows, it is not "crazy," let alone anti-Semitic, to believe that Jewish suffering can be a punishment from God; that is an oft-repeated theme in Jewish tradition. What is, if not crazy, then at least reckless, is to claim to know God's reasons for permitting the Holocaust and other acts of of cruelty and murder. How a good and loving God can allow such evil is an old, old question, for which we have, in the words of Isaiah, only one real –– and far from satisfying –– answer: "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, says the Lord." John Hagee is no anti-Semite. Far from it: The founder of Christians United for Israel is a passionate enemy of anti-Semitism, who has built a great ministry upon the conviction that Jew-hatred is a sin that must be purged from Christendom. Even a good pastor can preach an occasional poor sermon, and Hagee's remarks a decade ago would have been better left unsaid. But to tar him as an anti-Semite is the foulest kind of slander. The Jewish people and the Jewish state have few friends in the Christian world as devoted and indefatigable as Hagee. That is as true today as it ever was –– even if it is politically unfashionable to say so. |
|
FROM ISRAEL: "HAR HABAYIT BEYADENU"
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 1, 2008. |
|
"Har Habayit Beyadenu" "The Temple Mount is in our hands." The words spoken joyously by General Motta Gur, on retaking the Temple Mount, after 19 years of being forbidden access to the holiest of our sites. A year ago we celebrated 40 years that a united Jerusalem has been in our hands. By the thousands, we danced in the streets. Who would have dreamed that within the course of the year that followed we would have a government blind enough, foolish enough, sufficiently devoid of Jewish passion, to consider negotiating it away to a Palestinian Authority whose head has refused to recognize us a Jewish State? Tonight begins Yom Yerushalayim. May we move past these evil days with all possible speed, and hold fast to our sacred heritage for all time to come. Enjoy a magnificent rendering of Yerushalayim Shel Zahav by the late Ofra Haza:
[Editor's Note: See also http://youtube.com/watch?v=sh27UWmCd7E] ~~~~~~~~~~ This willingness to even consider negotiating away the Temple Mount is but one facet of the colossally stupid (and dangerous) policies of Olmert and company. Consider the current policy with regard to Syria: It's not long since Olmert announced "serious" indirect negotiations with Syria. This was not something which the US government welcomed. The US was attempting to isolate Syria, and along came Israel providing some legitimacy to this terrorist regime, even if indirectly. Now I read in Haaretz that Israel is warning the EU to show "caution" in contacts with Damascus. Seems there's a spate of renewed contact with Syria that is making Israel uneasy, and so a "secret" telegram has gone out from the deputy head of the Western Europe division at the Foreign Ministry to the ambassadors of key European countries, telling them to remind the Europeans to "be careful and measured" in contacts with Syria. After all, the negotiations haven't begun yet, and "the Europeans need to be reminded that Syria continues to smuggle weapons to Hezbollah, supports Hamas and Islamic Jihad and is not disengaging from Iran. All these are issues of great concern for Israel, and they are still on the table, unresolved." Sounds to me like a lot of good reasons for not negotiating with Syria now. But to open this Pandora's box and then be upset with what is set free! ~~~~~~~~~~ What is more, that list of unacceptable Syrian behaviors ignores yet another of enormous magnitude. The Bush administration believes there is more to Syria's nuclear program than the reactor that Israel destroyed last September. US intelligence suspects that Syria is hiding a network of at least three more facilities that would have provided the fuel for the reactor, and has requested that the UN send in inspectors. ~~~~~~~~~~ Please see Elkyakim Haetzni's piece, "The Golan is not for sale," which speaks of the dangers of trying to play with Syria and the errors of even contemplating surrender of a part of Israel that is steeped in our heritage.
~~~~~~~~~~ Then there is the matter of Olmert's and Barak's policy on Hamas in Gaza and the possibility of that ceasefire: Decisions have been tabled for now, ostensibly because Olmert is going to the US late tomorrow and there are issues said to require clarification. Reports are, however, that there are tensions between Barak and Olmert on how to resolve the matter –– and this time it is Barak who seems to not have his head screwed on very tightly. Our defense minister –– a former military man (and at one time he was a good one) –– is said to be in favor of the ceasefire, even though Shalit is not part of the deal and there is no firm commitment from Egypt with regard to stopping smuggling. Keep in mind that there are most certainly political dimensions to this inclination of Barak's. For him it would not be a matter purely of defense. Undoubtedly he is also considering the way in which a period of quiet that he engineered might play to his favor during this time of political upset. ~~~~~~~~~~ Most members of the Security Cabinet are reported to be against the ceasefire, and they are restive because they feel they are not being included sufficiently in the decision-making process. A Security Cabinet meeting scheduled for today was cancelled. ~~~~~~~~~~ Recent news from Egypt makes the mere consideration of a lull seem rather suicidal. Egyptian police have discovered a massive arms cache hidden inside of a mountain in the northern Sinai. The material –– which included 2,200 bullets, 30 anti-aircraft missiles, several sacks packed with hand grenades and automatic rifles, and RPG (rocket propelled grenade) launchers –– was to be smuggled into Gaza. The scenario is rather obvious. They keep upgrading their equipment. What was found in that mountain 80 kilometers from Rafah is surely the tip of the proverbial iceberg. News about anti-aircraft missiles (some of which may already have been brought into Gaza) is making the Israeli military uneasy. So? Do we wait until they upgrade even further, or do we regain our senses and start taking them out now? ~~~~~~~~~~ Of note here is a claim by Hamas that Fatah's Al Aksa Brigades in Gaza is increasingly cooperating with Islamic Jihad in a joint effort to sabotage the ceasefire. If this is so, all the talk will remain just that, for if all factions and groups are not on board, there is no deal. ~~~~~~~~~~ Considerable confusion exists regarding some apparent negotiations going on between Israel and Hezbollah. There have been rumors for days of a prisoner trade with them that would bring us back our two soldiers. Part of the trouble I'm having with this –– with considerable sadness –– is my dubiousness about whether Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev are still alive. There has been no evidence that they are and strong suspicion in many quarters that they are not; Gerhard Konrad, the German mediator involved in this believes that Hezbollah just wants to trade bodies. Which makes it all very strange. For there were rumors, at least, of a major concession in trade on our part: in Lebanon they have been crowing that arch-terrorist Samir Kuntar will be with them soon. Kuntar has written a letter to Nasrallah, which was published in the PA's al-Hayat and revealed by PMW, pledging that he would continue a life of Jihad: "I give you my promise and oath that my only place will be in the fighting front soaked with the sweat of your giving and with the blood of the shahids..." This, in and of itself, is more than enough reason to refuse to release him. ~~~~~~~~~~ At any rate, a trade of sorts has now taken place, although it's anyone's guess whether this is a precursor to something much bigger. We have just released Nissim Nasser, a Lebanese Jew who converted to Islam and moved to Israel, where he was arrested and convicted as a spy. His sentence was complete but he was being held under administrative arrest. And Hezbollah has released a box of bones to the Red Cross that are said to be the remains of Israeli soldiers who died in the Lebanese War in 2006. Forensic experts still must do identification. ~~~~~~~~~~ I will not belabor the Olmert scandal in detail, especially as the reports shift by the hour. There is considerable speculation as to precisely what he might be indicted for, but there is even talk of money laundering. Most damning, from my perspective, is what Caroline Glick shared in her piece on Friday. In a nutshell: Talansky owns a minority share in the Israeli firm ImageSat, which sells satellite images from Israeli spy satellites to foreign governments; Israeli Aerospace Industries (IAI) is the chief share holder. Talansky wanted to have ImageSat sell images to Hugo Chavez's government in Venezuela; he was so upset when IAI vetoed it, that this great Zionist took IAI to court. The clincher is this: "Last week Ma'ariv reported that Olmert had contacted an Israeli diplomat in Venezuela and asked him to expedite a proposed $18 million deal between Chavez's government and ImageSat but the Defense Ministry nixed the deal for some inscrutable reason."
~~~~~~~~~~ There is considerable jockeying for power as the current government weakens. Most, if not all, of the parties will hold primaries and begin to prepare for the day after. Within Kadima Livni is being challenged, in particular by Mofaz. More and more, including within Kadima, there is recognition that early elections are the likely outcome. Right now the guessing is in November. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
AT THE WILLOW BRANCHES
Posted by HaDaR, June 1, 2008. |
|
Immediately after the Liberation of Italy from the Nazi-Fascist occupiers, the Italian Poet Salvatore Quasimodo, Nobel Prize for Literature in 1959, wrote a poem, as beautiful as it is famous, taught in all the Literature courses of all the Italian High Schools ever since, which was inspired by Psalm 137, just as it had been, just a few decades before, for the famous Aria from the Opera "Nabucco" by Giuseppe Verdi, known as "Va' Pensiero". Let's not forget that, for over 2500 years, EVERY JEWISH WEDDING CEREMONY, IN ISRAEL AND IN ALL THE DIASPORA, has contained the words of Psalm 137: "If I forget you, O Jerusalem, may mi right hand be paralyzed, may my tongue be stuck to my palate if I do not remember you and I do not put you at the head of my rejoicing." In the XLI anniversary of the Liberation of Jerusalem that was occupied by Jordan; of the return in Jewish hands, after 1900 years, of the United Eternal Capital of Israel; of the removal of the walls and barbed wires which cut the City Center in the middle and which did not allow us to reach our holy sites; I take the opportunity to remind you both of the poem by Salvatore Quasimodo, speaking of Italy under the German boot, and of Psalm 137, dedicated to the unbreakable link of the People of Israel with Jerusalem, of our nostalgia for her and of the price that will pay all those who try to remove us from OUR CAPITAL. |
|
ALLE FRONDE DEI SALICI. AT THE WILLOW BRANCHES
E come potevano noi cantare And how could we sing
PSALM 137
1. By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat, we also wept when we remembered Zion.
|
|
GAZA FAMILY BLOWN UP BY THE BOMBS THEY WERE STORING
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 1, 2008. |
|
10 Injured, including 4 Women and 3 Children, in Explosion in Gaza City
Ten members of a family from the Abu Sha'ban clan were injured, including 4 women and 3 children, when an explosive device detonated inside their house. The explosion was caused by the mishandling of the device by a family member. The Centre views this incident as a continuation of the security chaos plaguing the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). Palestinian Centre for Human Rights's (PCHR) preliminary investigation indicates that at approximately 7:15 on Saturday, 31 May, a huge explosion rocked the house of Majed Mohammad Abu Sha'ban (55) in El-Daraj Quarter in Gaza City. The explosion injured 10 members of the family, including 4 women and 3 children. The injured were taken to Shifa Hospital for treatment, where the injuries were listed as moderate to light. The explosion destroyed the house completely and caused serious damages to a number of nearby houses. Islam Shehwan, the spokesman for the Interior Ministry, informed PCHR's fieldworker that the explosion was caused by the mishandling of an explosive device by a family member inside the house. PCHR is concerned over the continued falling of victims due to the misuse of weapons or storing them in civilian areas. The Centre calls upon the authorities to place adequate restrictions to prevent the recurrence of such tragedies in order to protect civilian lives and property. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
JERUSALEM DAY?
Posted by Batya Medad, June 1, 2008. |
|
This year Jerusalem Day feels different, sort of empty. I think making it a holiday was a mistake. It was established after the great, miraculous victory of the Six Days War. Why a mistake? Because it established a ranking, a division of importance between the Old Walled City of Jerusalem and all of the other Holy Land we liberated as the result of that war, that war which the Arabs planned as a means to destroy us, throw us into the sea. That's a critical, tragic, potentially fatal mistake; and I wrote that in present tense for a reason. Today we're suffering for that mistake. Only the liberation of the Kotel area is celebrated, not the liberation of Hebron, Shiloh, Bethlehem, the Jordan Valley and Shechem. All the government wanted, at most, was the Kotel and enough of the Old City to give Jews access. That's why they are so confident that there's nothing wrong in offering our enemies our Land. The Zionist establishment never really wanted it. When perfectly healthy quadruplets are born to parents who wanted "just one," do they give the "extra three" to an orphanage? I'm willing to celebrate a SIX DAYS WAR VICTORY DAY, but not Jerusalem Day. I'm willing to celebrate our survival. An old friend who's son was murdered in a terror attack considers her children and grandchildren, ken yirbu –– may there be many more, her revenge. This picture says it:
Thanks to a.b.e for it.
Batya Medad lives in Shiloh.
She can be reached by email at
Shilohmuse@yahoo.com or visit her website. This essay is archived at
|
|
BABY-KILLER KUNTAR: WHEN RELEASED, I'LL KEEP ON BLOOD-SOAKED PATH TO VICTORY
Posted by Naomi Ragen, June 1, 2008. | |
|
Friends, Who can forget Danny Haran, who was forced to watch terrorists crush the skull of his four-year old daughter Eynat before being murdered himself? Who can forget the agony of his wife, when Eynat's two year old sister suffocated in her hiding place? The terrorist responsible, Samir Kuntar, received four life sentences and has been growing fat in an Israeli jail. Now, with the help of German go-betweens, there seems to be a deal in place to release Kuntar in exchange for our kidnapped soldiers. Or their remains. Kuntar has written proudly that he will continue his baby-murdering ways if and when released (see below). If I ever get elected Prime Minister (not likely) my first act will be to ensure the death penalty for terrorists, so that there will be no terrorists the likes of Samir Kuntar, to exchange. My thanks to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) for translating and disseminating this letter. This comes from Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook of PMW. Naomi | |
|
Background: Samir Kuntar is the Lebanese terrorist serving four life sentences in an Israeli jail for murdering a four-year-old Israeli girl, Eynat Haran. He crushed her head with his rifle butt after murdering her father, Dani, and two policemen. Eynat's two-year-old sister, Yael, also died in the terror attack. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah announced last week that Israel had agreed to release Kuntar in exchange for Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev (or their remains), the IDF reservists kidnapped in July 2006. Media reports indicate that such a deal is imminent. The Kuntar letter: After the killing of international terrorist Imad Mughniyeh in Syria three months ago, Kuntar wrote a letter to Nasrallah in which he glorified terrorists and martyrdom, and vowed to continue in the path of terror "until complete victory." The following is the text of the Kuntar letter:
Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at www.naomiragen.com, where you can subscribe to her newsletter. |
|
HELPING THE FAMILIES OF GUSH KATIF, ONE YOM TOV AT A TIME
Posted by Lee Caplan, June 1, 2008. |
|
This was written by Aaron Troodler for the Shalosh Regalim Campaign. |
|
NCYI Shalosh Regalim Campaign To Provide Families With Food For Yom
Tov
As time marches on, the story of Gush Katif inexplicably continues to fade into the background. We no longer read about the expulsion on a regular basis, and media coverage of the episode has all but disappeared. The problem, however, is that the story of Gush Katif does in fact persist, albeit in a different vein. When the 8,000 residents of Gush Katif were forced to leave behind their homes and evacuate their communities in August 2005, the world watched in horror as these proud men, women, and children were driven from their houses and sent away. In an effort to achieve "peace" and appease our enemies, the Israeli government made the unthinkable decision to expel the Jews of Gush Katif and Northern Shomron and send them into oblivion. The government's unimaginable actions reverberated throughout the Jewish world and sent shockwaves through a nation that had to witness the expulsion of Jews by their own government. Three years later, the problems for the families from Gush Katif have multiplied and forced the evacuees to confront a whole new set of trials and tribulations. Monetary aid for the families that was promised from the Israeli government never fully arrived. Men and women who were gainfully employed while in Gush Katif have been unable to find work and are having difficulty supporting their families. Hundreds of families are living in caravans, rather than standard homes. Poverty has permeated the community and has forced the families to sacrifice even the most basic needs of daily living. Recognizing the dire situation that many of the families from Gush Katif sadly find themselves in, the National Council of Young Israel ("NCYI") got involved and embarked on a campaign to offer much-needed assistance to the families. The effort began when the NCYI organized an emergency food distribution campaign before Sukkot 2007. Two days before Yom Tov, the NCYI, together with the Council of Young Israel Rabbis in Israel ("CYIR"), and in conjunction with the Yad Ezra organization in Israel, provided more than $50,000 worth of food to families who had been evacuated from Gush Katif. With the help of Eugen and Jean Gluck of Forest Hills, Queens, and many others who made additional financial contributions, the National Council of Young Israel purchased truckloads of food for Sukkot. The food was delivered to over 500 families in Nitzan, as well as to many other Gush Katif families in the Golan, Ashkelon, and various other cities. "While there are many worthy tzedakahs that are certainly deserving of our benevolence, this campaign focuses on the most elemental aspect of daily living –– putting food on the table," said NCYI Executive Vice President Rabbi Pesach Lerner. "Although many people are fortunate to live in relative comfort, we cannot forget that some of our Jewish brothers and sisters have virtually nothing. The families of Gush Katif find themselves in a terrible predicament that materialized as a result of circumstances beyond their control, and it is up to us –– the people who have the ability to help –– to do so." After witnessing the outpouring of gratitude and expressions of genuine appreciation from the families of Gush Katif, the impact that the food distribution had on them was a revelation for all those involved in the campaign, and the Simchat Yom Tov that it engendered made it very clear that there was a tremendous void that had to be filled. As preparations for Pesach 2008 began to take shape, the National Council of Young Israel again undertook to provide the families of Gush Katif with the food that they would need to be able to enjoy Pesach, and experience true cheirus. With Eugen and Jean Gluck of Forest Hills leading the way once again, the NCYI collected over $150,000 which was used to buy much-needed provisions for the families. As was the case with the Sukkot campaign, the money that was collected went to purchasing the food and none of the funds were used to cover other overhead costs. Several days prior to Pesach, 4 truckloads carrying more than 25 tons of food came to Nitzan, where they delivered the food to the families of Gush Katif. Families who used to live in Gush Katif and now live in temporary housing in communities and cities throughout Israel, all came to Nitzan, which was the central distribution point, to get food for Yom Tov. In addition, the NCYI and Yad Ezra arranged to have another truckload of food delivered to families in Sderot, whose ability to prepare for the chag was hampered by the Kassam rockets that rained down on their community. The Pesach food distribution included 7 tons of fruits, vegetables, and potatoes, 2 tons of Matzah, 50,000 eggs, 3 tons of dairy products, 2 tons of fish, 1 ton of meat products, 5,000 chickens, 10,000 bottles of wine and grape juice, 3,000 bottles of cooking oil, 4 tons of canned and dry foods (tuna, sugar, spices, cake meal, coffee, etc.), soda and other drinks, as well as candy and nosh for the children. The food that was distributed to the more than 700 families in need impacted the former residents of Gush Katif in ways that no one could have possibly anticipated. "Imagine opening the refrigerator and seeing it full," said one woman, "We were able to enjoy the true spirit of the chag. It was the first time that we had to worry about having ample room in the freezer since the expulsion." "It is good to see that people remember and give," said one mother from Nitzan, "You cannot imagine how much joy a simple piece of chocolate can bring to our children." "My kids were as happy as they could have been if we had just left Mitzrayim," said another mother. "All of a sudden we had food in the house," said one woman, "My children thought that my husband had finally been able to find a job." The effect that the food distribution campaign had on the families of Gush Katif extended far beyond the simple appreciation of the food. The mere fact that people were once again focusing on their plight gave the families a tremendous amount of chizuk. "Someone from America cared," said a man from Nitzan, "It was almost as if people had forgotten about us." "In the beginning everyone remembered –– now only you," said one of the mothers whose family received food. "We were always givers, not takers," said another man, "We didn't want to be in this situation –– it wasn't by choice." "My husband died in 2004 in a terrorist attack," remarked one woman, "On behalf of myself and my seven children, thank you. May you always be able to be on the giving side and not on the receiving side." "It is impossible to describe our appreciation," said another woman, "This was a dream come true. We experienced a true Chag Sameach." Rabbi Michael Strick, the Director of the Council of Young Israel Rabbis in Israel, assisted in the food distribution in Nitzan. "Nitzan residents feel that the consideration and benevolence of the Young Israel movement provided them with a respite from the burdensome worry of day to day survival," said Rabbi Strick. "Caught up in an adjustment process which means calibrating coping skills to apply to close quarters and minimal privacy after having lived in open air, space rich communities is tedious and draining. Knowing that there are organizations such as the National Council of Young Israel that care, gives them an injection of hope and belief that in the end they, the evacuees, will find the strength, creativity, and ingenuity that are characteristic to Jews under duress. They believe it is a long haul and they are hopeful that young and old will find the necessary support systems to endure without losing their basic belief in the centrality of the State of Israel to the Jewish people today and for the future." The driver of one of the trucks who is associated with Yad Ezra and who helped deliver the food before Pesach recounted a story that essentially summarized the dire situation that the families of Gush Katif face, and the obstacles that they are struggling to overcome. He spoke of a woman who approached him as he was unloading the food from the truck and told him that her husband passed away four months before the expulsion. She recalled how he used to tell her that if anything were to ever happen to him, Hashem would always help her and their children. Now, several years later, every single day is a struggle. Shabbat and Yom Tov are especially difficult, as she is unable to provide the food needed to make a proper Shabbat or chag. Despite her situation, she is embarrassed and does not want to ask for help. The driver said that as he gave this woman a small wagon to fill with food for Pesach, he noticed that she could not stop taking provisions that she so desperately needed. In fact, recalled the driver, she needed so much food just to make Yom Tov for her family, that she finally accepted help from one of her friends who had a car, and who was able to help her transport the food to her caravan. "This whole project was done b'kavod, with respect, and with a great deal of help from individuals and shuls from throughout the United States," said NCYI President Shlomo Mostofsky, "We are extremely fortunate that we were able to help our fellow Jews when they needed it most. Just as we remember the pain and anguish that the families of Gush Katif suffered when they were forced out of their homes, we must also remember that their current situation is still dire, and that they desperately need our help in order to survive." With the campaigns for Sukkot and Pesach behind us, Rabbi Lerner noted that it is now time to turn our attention to Shavuot. "Despite the enormous success of our latest food distribution campaign, Pesach is over and unfortunately the refrigerators are once again empty," said Rabbi Lerner, "As we count the days of the Omer and realize that Shavuot is right around the corner, we must remember that the families of Gush Katif desperately need our help to supply them with food for Yom Tov. For us, items such as wine, challah, fish, blintzes, and cheesecake may be staples of our Shavuot meals, but for these families, they are luxuries that they cannot afford to buy on their own." Rabbi Lerner encourages everyone to contribute to the National Council of Young Israel's Shalosh Regalim Campaign in order to help the families of Gush Katif enjoy the Yom Tov of Shavuot, and to enable them to have the same sense of Simchat Yom Tov that other Jews are able to experience. People are urged to join the NCYI in sponsoring a family for Shabbat Parashat Naso and Shavuot, the long holiday weekend. Over 1,000 families need our help, at a cost of between $180 and $250 per family. The more we can give them for the "weekend," observed Rabbi Lerner, the more they will have as "leftovers" and other meals for the rest of the week. Contributions should be made payable to Young Israel Charities –– Shalosh Regalim Campaign and mailed to the National Council of Young Israel, 111 John Street, Suite 450, New York, NY 10038. Donations can also be made online at www.youngisrael.org (simply click on "Donate" and check off Gush Katif –– Shavuot Campaign). For more information, contact, Rabbi Pesach Lerner, the Executive Vice President of the National Council of Young Israel, at execvp@youngisrael.org or call 212-929-1525 x100. Contact Lee Caplan at leescaplan@yahoo.com |
| Home | Featured Stories | Background Information | News On The Web |